gem packages including vendorlized external gems
Mamoru Tasaka
mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp
Mon Sep 13 18:28:10 UTC 2010
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_projects
[2] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/2010-June/000197.html
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633089
Regards,
Mamoru
More information about the ruby-sig
mailing list