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=668820 Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |clalance@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #7 from Chris Lalancette <clalance@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-07 16:16:43 EDT --- Vit, I took a look at this, and I have to admit I am a bit baffled by the situation. I looked at the latest rdoc sources (https://github.com/rdoc/rdoc) vs. the current upstream ruby sources (https://github.com/ruby/ruby). The sources are identical; indeed, there is a commit in the ruby source code (b7528b5edb1f9148ea00ebb6151720e5943b3f0b) that updates the ruby in-tree code to the latest rdoc git. That seems to say to me that the ruby code is tracking the rdoc, and that the code in the ruby tree is probably the canonical one we should use. That being said, then, we already have a ruby-rdoc package that is built out of the ruby SRPM. Granted, it is a much older version (since Fedora is still on ruby 1.8.7), but it seems to me that we would want to stick with that. At least, adding another gem that does the same thing as the base ruby library seems to be a recipe for confusion. Can we not just patch the railties gemspec to remove (or modify) the rdoc dependency, and then just use the ruby-rdoc package we already have? Is there something else I'm missing here? Chris lalancette -- 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