* Duncan Mac-Vicar P. <dmacvicar(a)suse.de> [Jan
28. 2014 14:53]:
I'd like to generate the following packages for Ruby 2.1
This would provide binaries (ruby, irb, rake, gem, ...) and a minimal
set of documentation (changelog, readme, news, ...)
This would only provide the libruby2.1.so.2.0.0 shared library
This would provide the /usr/lib64/ruby/2.1.0/ directory tree.
This would provide the full Ruby documentation including samples.
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.
6. ruby-devel, ruby-devel-extra, ruby-doc-ri
These would stay unchanged.
I agree with .4.
2. is useful only for extensions I guess.
3. Not sure if this bring value. Can ruby be already be ran without the
stdlib or will the package have to require it anyway?
2+3 would be a hard dependency of the main ruby package. The split is
just for maintenance/upgrade reasons, to make fixes easier to
distribute and faster to install.