[Bug 668820] Review Request: rubygem-rdoc - RDoc produces HTML and command-line documentation for Ruby projects

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668820

--- Comment #15 from Mo Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> 2011-07-11 15:23:19 EDT ---
If ruby-rdoc and rubygem-rdoc are both installed on a system, one will need to
be given preference over the other for the default tooling. The issue is which
one is given preference and the mechanism which to switch between them (if that
is supported).

All in all, from the end user's perspective, I imagine the only thing that is
important is compatibility, eg if the rdoc version that is installed will
correctly handle their ruby documentation needs. 

If the newer rubygem-rdoc won't suffice as a replacement then we should make
sure it doesn't step on ruby-rdoc's toes for compatibility reasons. We can
always refer to the specific rubygem-rdoc binaries and paths in gems that
depend on it (such as rails).

But if the newer rubygem-rdoc gem is fully backwards compatible with ruby-rdoc,
then there is no reason to simplify things and just use that by default
(falling back to ruby-rdoc if its not present). Care should be taken doing so,
we should not refer to any gem bits inside the ruby-rdoc package itself


All in all, this package should be submitted, so lets continue w/ this
submission process, resolving this as we go along

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.