On Wednesday 22 January 2014 13:52:30 Jordi Massaguer Pla wrote:
On 01/22/2014 01:23 PM, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
Hi,
going forward, Ruby becomes more important in the openSUSE and SLES codebase. This is why Coolo asked me to come up with a new Ruby packaging scheme. Read on to learn about my current thinking in this regard.
What are the goals ?
1. revert the ruby, rubyXY, and ruby-common split
Initially done to allow multiple Ruby versions in parallel, it wasn't really used and developers use rvm or rbenv to achieve the same effect. From a buildservice perspective, this split cause more headaches than it provided value.
in studio product we have ruby 1.8 and ruby 1.9 at the same time because the first one is a requirement from WebYast and the second one from studio itself. I am not saying this is good or desirable, but please take in mind this kind of situation.
Mucho agreed. I strongly vote for keeping parallel-installability. For several products (like Cloud) this is a must-have. And it's already present in openSUSE (and thus SLE12).
2. Ruby will be part of inst-sys (for YaST)
Another good reason why you want parallel installs. ATM ruby-2.1 is fresh like cheese. But this version on SLE_X. Let 6 years pass and take one of our Ruby- based products. It will likely use ruby-42 by then. You can't drop ruby21 because of yast but you need ruby42 because of $PRODUCT...
As you know, size matters. Looking at the ruby20 package, it has an install size of 18MB However, 'du -sh /usr/share/doc/packages/ruby20' reports 5.9 MB just for documentation.
Yes, that better belongs into a doc package.
3. The new package scheme should support maintenance better
A split between binaries, shared libraries, and Ruby stdlib seems desirable
Packaging proposal:
I'd like to generate the following packages for Ruby 2.1
1. ruby-2.1
This would provide binaries (ruby, irb, rake, gem, ...) and a minimal set of documentation (changelog, readme, news, ...)
2. libruby2
This would only provide the libruby2.1.so.2.0.0 shared library
3. ruby-stdlib
This would provide the /usr/lib64/ruby/2.1.0/ directory tree.
4. ruby-doc
This would provide the full Ruby documentation including samples.
The general idea is good, see review of https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/213556
5. ruby-macros ?
This would be a new name for ruby-common, a package only used for building ruby GEM packages. Actually, I'm not happy about the name. It should reflect the package usage. ruby-devel-build or ruby-build-macros could be alternatives.
Dunno if it's worth discussing package names but it's established practice to name RPM macro packages for software foo $FOO as $FOO-macros or $FOO-rpm- macros. Maybe the later is more obvious.
6. ruby-devel, ruby-devel-extra, ruby-doc-ri
These would stay unchanged.
Also touched by the review above.
Comments ?
With multiple Ruby versions in mind, the list would rather look like ruby21, libruby2_1, ruby21-doc, ruby21-rpm-macros. Just like we have it ATM. -- With kind regards, Sascha Peilicke SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409 Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org