Dne 19.3.2014 18:26, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
On 03/11/2014 04:45 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I am working on draft of Ruby packaging guidelines for F21 . The main
> two changes are:
> 1) Simplified packaging of binary extensions (although there is still
> one caveat ).
> 2) Changes due to automatic dependency generators.
> If you have any comments, suggestions, please let me know.
> ruby-sig mailing list
Hey Vit read through the changes, they look good, save one point.
Mo, thanks for the review!
"Libraries" > "Rubygems"
"There '''should''' not be listed any
<code>Provides</code>, since they are autogenerated."
I understand this is a 'should' and not a 'must' but perhaps this
restriction should only apply to "rubygem Requires", eg rubygem-curb
needs to have a dependency on libcurl which is seemingly in contrast w/
Perhaps something like this would work?
"There "should" not be any Rubygem <code>Requires</code> not
<code>Provides</code> listed since those are autogenerated"
That is a good idea. I updated the draft .
Also what about BuildRequires, will those be autogenerated?
I don't think that this is possible nor it would be reliable, since
there are plenty of gems which do not list the dependencies correctly
(e.g. some rely on Bundler, some lists Rake, which we don't usually
need, similarly with hoe, etc).
Nevertheless, I updated the gem2rpm to generate the BuildRequires ,
but as you probably noticed, they are kept commented out and you should
review them and enable as needed. Also, they are filtered  and some
well known gems which came to my mind are ignored, since we discourage
usage of Rake and Bundler for test suite execution for example. Hoe
mentioned above might be another good candidate for this list IMO.