<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dne 4.1.2012 16:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
<blockquote cite="mid:4F0470E3.9050909@redhat.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 01/02/2012 08:55 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi guys,
thank you all for your comments. I updated the guidelines draft to reflect them:</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Again thanks for the new guidelines. Just a couple more comments
inline below<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- BR: ruby is now replaced with BR: ruby-devel for Ruby packages.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Possible duplication / discrepancy:<br>
<br>
- In 'Ruby Packaging Guidelines':<br>
"Ruby packages <b>must</b> require ruby-devel package at build
time with a <code>BuildRequires: ruby-devel</code>, and <b>may</b>
indicate the minimal ruby version they need for building."<br>
<br>
- In 'Build Architecture and File Placement':<br>
"All non-gem ruby packages <b>must</b> require ruby-devel package
at build time with a <code>BuildRequires: ruby-devel</code>. "<br>
<br>
<br>
Which should it be, 'all' ruby packages or just 'non-gem' ruby
packages. Most likely the former, so for simplicity sake, the
latter should be removed.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The latter is correct, since gems requires rubygems-devel and that
should be enough for gems.<br>
<br>
However, reading the guidelines again, I am not happy with the
structure. We have RubyGems section, but we don't have Non-gems
section. The "Build Architecture and File Placement" should be
probably 3rd level and we need some nice 2nd level caption. Any
idea?<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F0470E3.9050909@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- The Gem versioned dependencies for R: and BR: were reformulated.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Looks good, again though, going w/ the bundler discussion we
should also include a bit saying that the gem dependencies in the
rpm spec, gemspec, and bundler Gemfile.lock (as well as any other
package management system files tracking this) must be kept in
sync.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Examples for packaging Gems with C extensions (did some rewriting in that section, too)</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Looks good<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> and packaging Ruby applications (also fixed the header from h3 to h2 here :)) were added.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
As far as the application example, is there a known example of one
we could show that doesn't use rubygems. I imagine alot of
end-user applications written in ruby do no use gems. I know the
topic of shipping deltacloud in a non-gem form has been brought up
on the deltacloud lists.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Puppet always comes to me mind, but I am not sure that its .spec is
the one I would like to use as an example :) But Bohuslav will have
some tip I hope.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F0470E3.9050909@redhat.com" type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">- Creation of non-Gem subpackages is no longer allowed.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Any thoughts on removing the rest of the contents of that section
and just leave the caution. The extra stuff looks like it just
creates clutter and can be retrieved from the wiki history if we
wanted.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8909abdb-b305-4554-9cd7-a67ddc655c5b@zmail15.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
It would be great if you could comment on the changes.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thoughts? I can go in and make the proposed changes if that'd
elaborate / is desired.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Please feel free to update the draft wherever you think is suitable.<br>
<br>
<br>
Vit<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F0470E3.9050909@redhat.com" type="cite">
-Mo<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
ruby-sig mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org">ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>