Klaus Kaempf (kkaempf@suse.de) wrote:
* Adam Spiers
[Nov 06. 2012 14:32]: It's not any more messy than the automatic Provides: which rubygemsdeps.rb already generates, and has a number of advantages over -1_0 suffixing:
- automatically generated so no manual renaming required by packager
- doesn't pollute the Name: field with version info already in the Version: field
- eliminates confusion in the packaging policy about when to use suffixing and when not to use it
- hidden from the user (e.g. 'rpm -q rubygem-foo' always gives the user the answer they intuitively expect)
- allows multiple minor versions to co-exist on the same machine, just like bundler does
Actually, thats *exactly* how I would like RPM-packaged GEMs to behave.
- allows *optional* enabling/disabling of multiversion: - for all gems system-wide - per gem - per gem major version - per gem minor version - per Ruby version and gem - per Ruby version and gem major version - per Ruby version and gem minor version
The multiversion property is one of the main reasons I work with plain gems.
You mean plain as opposed to with a '-1_0' suffix?
I wouldn't want to disable it at all.
I can't think of a good reason either, but it sounds like some were aired in the workshop last week. I would really like to know some details about these objections to multiversioning of gem packages. The only difficulty I can think of is if both Ruby 1.8 and 1.9 were installed on the same system, and gem 'foo-1.2.3' was needed simultaneously for both installations. But this difficulty also exists within the suffixed naming scheme, so it's not a valid reason to reject the above non-suffixed proposal. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org