Updated Guidelines Draft

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 4.1.2012 16:31, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
> 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 latter is correct, since gems requires rubygems-devel and that 
should be enough for gems.

However, reading the guidelines again, I am not happy with the 
structure. We have RubyGems section, but we don't have Non-gems section. 
The "Build Architecture and File Placement" should be probably 3rd level 
and we need some nice 2nd level caption. Any idea?

>
>
>> - 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.

Puppet always comes to me mind, but I am not sure that its .spec is the 
one I would like to use as an example :) But Bohuslav will have some tip 
I hope.

>
>> - 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.
>

Please feel free to update the draft wherever you think is suitable.


Vit

>   -Mo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ruby-sig mailing list
> ruby-sig at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ruby-sig/attachments/20120104/4b69a034/attachment-0001.html>