Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=601633 --- Comment #12 from Shreyank Gupta <shreyankg@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-14 04:47:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > We already have some other example. > - For example rails is not scrictly ruby "library" But it still is a web framework. All rails applications have "gem 'rails'" as inside config/boot.rb > - Also we have "merb" (I don't know well, maintained by Kent), and > (I think) this is not ruby library I guess they will be merged into rails 3 > - haml is also an application > It is basically a library to parse views templates written in haml. > But naming these packages as "rubygem-foo" anyway is preferred because > we can track easily what packages are built from gem (i.e. it makes > easier to maintain). If that is the concern could we package sup as rubygem-sup and provide a subpackage sup (something similar to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Ruby#Packaging_for_Gem_and_non-Gem_use) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review