Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-ruby (83 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-ruby] Revised gem packaging
  • From: Adam Spiers <aspiers@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 11:54:17 +0000
  • Message-id: <20121106115407.GI24068@pacific.linksys.moosehall>
Stephan Kulow (coolo@xxxxxxx) wrote:
On 06.11.2012 09:54, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
* Stephan Kulow <coolo@xxxxxxx> [Nov 06. 2012 06:43]:

It's not a bug, it's a design limitation.


BTW: zypper doesn't like two
packages named rubygem-foo either.

Can you please be more specific here ?

zypper is supporting multiple versions of a package (i.e. the linux
kernel) for quite some time and I don't see issues with zypper and the
four versions of sblim-sfcb in systemsmanagement:wbem either.

Yeah, if you configure multiversion for kernels in zypp.conf - do you
want to change zypp.conf for all gems?

multiversion is not necessarily a requirement here. We are talking
about a single OBS project providing the *choice* of multiple versions
of a gem. AFAICS, sblim-sfcb in systemsmanagement:wbem is an example
where multiversion would *not* be required, because e.g. 1.3.7 would
only ever be installed on SP1 machines, and 1.3.11 on SP2 machines.

However, in the few ugly cases where multi-version is required, it
should be possible to accommodate - rubygemsdeps.rb could generate the
following extra Provides:


and then any product-oriented rpm could install the appropriate
multiversion policy / policies into /etc/zypp/multiversion.d/

multiversion = provides:multiversion(1.9:rubygem-foo)'

which would allow multiple versions of the foo gem to co-exist
simultaneously for a 1.9 ruby install.

So I have *still* not heard a convincing reason why we would ever need
suffices in the Name: field.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
List Navigation