Vít Ondruch wrote on 01/02/2017 05:48 PM:
Dne 1.1.2017 v 10:04 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
> Hello, again:
> Vít Ondruch wrote on 09/15/2016 12:35 AM:
>> Dne 14.9.2016 v 17:18 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
>>> Hello, Vít:
>>> Vít Ondruch wrote on 09/13/2016 12:01 AM:
>>>> When I did the last snapshot, I mentioned, that Tcl/Tk was moved into
>>>> gem. But upstream took step further and dropped the Tcl/Tk support
>>>> the Ruby stdlib entirely. The tk gem is the only option now. Hence I
>>>> dropped the subpackage as well. The only caveat is that there is not
>>>> good place to obsolete this package. I figured out that I place the
>>>> obsoletes into ruby-libs to remove the ruby-tcltk package from the
>>>> system, but if you have any better idea, please let me know.
>>> Perhaps packaging ruby/tk is the smartest:
>>> Looks like the git log or so, the above seems to be exactly the
>>> for previously rubylib Tcl/Tk.
>> Yes, it should be drop in replacement as far as I understand it.
>>> If you don't have time, I may try packaging in a week or two weeks.
> Sorry for very looooooong delay, however not I've submitted
> review request for rubygem-tk:
Just wondering about the "Obsoletes: ruby-tcltk < 2.4.0". Have you
tested it against the Ruby 2.4? Should I remove the "Obsoleted" from the
Well, I have not tried ruby 2.4 yet. And while I think it is better
"Obsoletes: ruby-tcltk" is on rubygem-tk (as rubygem-tk is the replacement
for current ruby-tcltk), it can be on ruby-libs: either will be okay, perhaps.