https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114146 --- Comment #4 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Julian C. Dunn from comment #3) > So I have already had this discussion with upstream. The vendoring (or not) > of the C library is all within the separate libyajl2 gem, to abstract that > away. Yes, and that is the point. This is one level of abstraction too much. If the vendored library would be part of the ffi-yajl, as that was actually case for the yajl-ruby, that would be OK. If that would be no hard dependency, that would be OK as well. You can take a look at bson and bson_ext for example, or at multi_json. Every of this library has dependencies. If they are not fulfilled, warning or error is issued. > I can separately package that gem as rubygem-libyajl2 with the > vendoring turned off (it's supported by upstream) instead of doing it the > way I have done; would that be acceptable, to maintain the existing > dependency tree? With sad hearth. Since I am afraid it will end up as therubyracer with its v8 dependency :/ > The only reason I did it this way is because at this point the > rubygem-libyajl2 package becomes a complete no-op and is only used to > satisfy gem deps. Yes, I understand your reasons. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review