Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-ruby (8 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-ruby] ruby packaging quo vadis
  • From: "Duncan Mac-Vicar P." <dmacvicar@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 11:23:49 +0200
  • Message-id: <4E2941A5.8050609@suse.de>
On 07/21/2011 06:41 PM, Pavol Rusnak wrote:
On 07/21/2011 06:38 PM, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. wrote:
What are other rpm distributions going to do about this? Is this already
discussed with them?

I am already seeing in Fedora stuff that differes from our packages (ie:
provides like rubygem(rspec) )

I'm almost sure that Fedora guys do not care about installing (and
providing rubygems for) ruby 1.8 and 1.9 in parallel. I would suggest
going the same way, but knowing that we don't have enough manpower to
maintain two different sets of packages for openSUSE and SLE I won't.

This is not about maintaining two different sets of packages. The same source could build with 1.8 in one distro and with 1.9 in another. This is about offering two rubies on the same distribution.

As with Java, ruby gems only make sense when shipping a product. For development most people would be fine with rvm. Just as most developers would install Eclipse from the .zip and forget about it. This may be true even for server deployments.

The difference is when you want to "ship" this product as a distributable. Then it makes sense to create rpms out of it.

We don't have the manpower to package gems just for fun. We package what we need for stuff that needs to be distributed: build service (opensuse) and internally we contribute with gems needed for SUSE Studio, SLMS, etc.

So, having "parallel" ruby 1.9 and 1.8 is not a real need but just something "cool". And if this would prevent us from sharing unmodified packages "it is" from other rpm distros, I see it then more as a problem than a solution.

With Java in my team we are following the same strategy, trying to be able to reuse JPP and Fedora packages when possible. And we are applying different strategies only where it adds value, for example, maven packages would mean to maintain a maven stack so we went a different path and unmavenize them. I don't see this "added" value with two ruby stacks.

I think the gem concept with rpm is wrong. Pure ruby gems should be noarch and shared across ruby interpreters (or not shared by using standard Requires/Conflicts). This is a big bunch of the gem world. If anything needs to be changed, it needs to be in this direction and I see this as the opposite one.

--
Duncan Mac-Vicar P. - Novell® Making IT Work As One™

SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+help@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation