Updated Guidelines Draft

[Mo Morsi]

On 01/02/2012 08:55 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi guys,
> thank you all for your comments. I updated the guidelines draft to reflect them:

Again thanks for the new guidelines. Just a couple more comments inline 
below

> - BR: ruby is now replaced with BR: ruby-devel for Ruby packages.

Possible duplication / discrepancy:

- In 'Ruby Packaging Guidelines':
"Ruby packages *must* require ruby-devel package at build time with a 
|BuildRequires: ruby-devel|, and *may* indicate the minimal ruby version 
they need for building."

- In 'Build Architecture and File Placement':
"All non-gem ruby packages *must* require ruby-devel package at build 
time with a |BuildRequires: ruby-devel|. "


Which should it be, 'all' ruby packages or just 'non-gem' ruby packages. 
Most likely the former, so for simplicity sake, the latter should be 
removed.


> - The Gem versioned dependencies for R: and BR: were reformulated.

Looks good, again though, going w/ the bundler discussion we should also 
include a bit saying that the gem dependencies in the rpm spec, gemspec, 
and bundler Gemfile.lock (as well as any other package management system 
files tracking this) must be kept in sync.


> - Examples for packaging Gems with C extensions (did some rewriting in that section, too)

Looks good

>   and packaging Ruby applications (also fixed the header from h3 to h2 here :)) were added.

As far as the application example, is there a known example of one we 
could show that doesn't use rubygems. I imagine alot of end-user 
applications written in ruby do no use gems. I know the topic of 
shipping deltacloud in a non-gem form has been brought up on the 
deltacloud lists.

> - Creation of non-Gem subpackages is no longer allowed.

Any thoughts on removing the rest of the contents of that section and 
just leave the caution. The extra stuff looks like it just creates 
clutter and can be retrieved from the wiki history if we wanted.

>
> It would be great if you could comment on the changes.
>

Thoughts? I can go in and make the proposed changes if that'd elaborate 
/ is desired.

   -Mo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20120104/226eb2b8/attachment.html>