Distributing Rails 3 apps

[Darryl L. Pierce]

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 04:32:04PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 5.8.2011 16:27, Darryl L. Pierce napsal(a):
> >On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 04:12:25PM +0200, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
> >>On 08/05/2011 02:11 PM, Tyler Smart wrote:
> >>>Number 2 does sound the best, but I have had an idea that I think would be an interesting project. It involves standing up a Fedora RubyGem server and forking bundler so that we can tie it into yum. Whenever you install a gem package, gem actually calls yum and grabs the gem-rpms from our server. We could have gem2rpm spit out a src rpm that we can feed to brew (for the gems that require compilation) and all others are just noarch. That way we can still develop in "the ruby way" but do it all with RPMS. This idea still needs fleshing out, mind you, but I think it is worth looking at.
> >>Interesting idea, but as Vita said later in the thread - RPMs are a must.
> >>
> >>Thanks for tips!
> >Sorry to come into the discussion late, but after talking with Tyler
> >this morning I'd like to participate in this (since the convergence of
> >RPM and GEM is a source of frustration for me).
> >
> >The problem I see is that RPM and GEM are not compatible enough for
> >distributing GEMs properly. Specifically, you can't install two versions
> >of an RPM (such as rubygem-rails) while GEM absolutely allows this sort
> >of side-by-side installation. The same problem exists for other
> >dependency systems such as Maven.
> 
> This is not exact. RPM allows to install different versions of
> package on single system, but yum disallows it.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that. So it's possible to have rubygem-rails
2.3.11 and 3.0.0 installed on a single system?

Does RPM properly handle updates to either one; i.e., 2.3.11-5 is
installed and release 2.3.11-6 is made available? Or would RPM treat
that as a third version of the RPM and install it?

And, assuming we leveraged this, how does it handle common files 
between packages, such as /usr/bin/rails binary? I would think we could
solve that by using an alternatives-type of solution, at least for
binaries.

-- 
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among software vendors.
http://www.redhat.com/promo/vendor/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20110805/1d90e780/attachment.bin