Klaus Kaempf (kkaempf@suse.de) wrote:
Hi,
using rpm to cripple a well working mechanism (gem/bundler) for Ruby feels wrong per se, but that's probably worth another discussion on opensuse-softwaremgmt.
When trawling this list's archives, it seemed to me that this discussion had already been mostly covered on this list. Another thing to bear in mind is that even though this is an openSUSE list, the reality is that rpm packaging of gems will in some contexts be done by SUSE employees and driven by the need for those rpms as part of the platform for a current or future SUSE product such as a release of SUSE Studio or Cloud. In that context, there *may* be more compelling reasons to have one rpm per gem than there would normally be, e.g. to conform with existing product maintenance mechanisms (security updates are the most obvious, but IIRC there are automated per-rpm licensing checks too and maybe other legalities which would probably be circumvented by shipping bundles instead). So the question is whether the additional effort in packaging is justified or not. Even if it is, of course this would not force any openSUSE user to use the rpms instead of bundler.
That said, the current solution of adding version numbers to package names seems awkward. RPM already provides dependency resolution based on names and version numbers, moving versions into the package name just seems to add more work on packagers and to pollute the package name space. Looks more like a workaround for build service limitations to me.
No, these are limitations in rpm itself. As darix pointed out last year, bundler's ~> operator cannot map straightforwardly into rpm Requires expressions: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-ruby/2011-07/msg00000.html -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org