gem packages including vendorlized external gems

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Hello, all:

As written on Fedora "general" packaging guideline [1], and as
kanarip explained on this mailing list, generally we do not allow
to use gems including vendorized external gems.

Now as I saw a review request based on a rubygem containing vendorlized
external gems [3], I searched for rubygem based rpms on Fedora rawhide
containing vendorlized gems and actually we already ships such ones:

Owner           srpm                                          bin_rpm

kanarip         rubygem-picnic-0.8.1-2.fc12                   rubygem-picnic 
kanarip         rubygem-shoulda-2.11.3-1.fc15                 rubygem-shoulda-doc
mmorsi          rubygem-actionmailer-2.3.8-1.fc15             rubygem-actionmailer
mmorsi          rubygem-actionpack-2.3.8-2.fc15               rubygem-actionpack
mmorsi          rubygem-activesupport-2.3.8-2.fc15            rubygem-activesupport
mmorsi          rubygem-compass-0.8.17-3.fc14                 rubygem-compass
mtasaka         rubygem-activeldap-1.2.1-1.fc13               rubygem-activeldap
mtasaka         rubygem-gettext_activerecord-2.1.0-1.fc13     rubygem-gettext_activerecord-doc
mtasaka         rubygem-gettext_rails-2.1.0-3.fc14            rubygem-gettext_rails-doc

( I have 3....)
For example, activesupport 2.3.8 contains builder-2.1.2, i18n-0.3.7, memcache-client-1.7.4,
tzinfo-0.3.12. All of them should be packaged separately and activesupport should depend
on such separately packaged rubygem related packages.

Unless there are some opinions that this kind of bundling external projects should
be allowed, I will file bugs for these packages on RH bugzilla (and also I have to
fix such bugs) Note that I guess this kind of bundling external projects should also 
require FESCO's approval anyway.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_pro...
[2] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-June/000197.html
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633089

Regards,
Mamoru

[Michael Stahnke]

> kanarip         rubygem-shoulda-2.11.3-1.fc15                 rubygem-shoulda-doc

Shoulda includes two rails fixtures as test cases for shoulda.  They
have a 'vendor' directory as most rails applications do, but they
basically empty.  I don't think any change is required for this.
Shoulda testing is checking to see if macros (inside vendor) load
properly, but they contain no content.

stahnma

[Mamoru Tasaka]

Michael Stahnke wrote, at 09/14/2010 11:30 AM +9:00:
> > kanarip         rubygem-shoulda-2.11.3-1.fc15                 rubygem-shoulda-doc
>
> Shoulda includes two rails fixtures as test cases for shoulda.  They
> have a 'vendor' directory as most rails applications do, but they
> basically empty.  I don't think any change is required for this.
> Shoulda testing is checking to see if macros (inside vendor) load
> properly, but they contain no content.
>
> stahnma

Thank you for feedback. My previous mail is based on the
result of

$ repoquery --whatprovides '/usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/*/vendor'

so it may contain some false positives, however I guess most
of the detected packages need fixing.

Regards,
Mamoru