[Bug 180066] Request: Inclusion of a ruby template file

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Request: Inclusion of a ruby template file


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=180066


ville.skytta at iki.fi changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |fedora-extras-
                   |                            |list at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From ville.skytta at iki.fi  2006-02-05 06:28 EST -------
I think this is a good idea, but the implementation is not quite ready.  In
particular:

- Too many comments for a spec template at the top of the specfile near the 
  %defines as well as the License tag.
- Requires: ruby = %(...) needs verification whether it does the right thing.
  Maybe something like python(abi) and perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_*) should be
  implemented in the ruby(-libs?) package.  Additionally, do all ruby extension 
  packages require ruby, or would ruby-libs be more appropriate?
- BuildRequires: ruby is needed, because ruby-devel does not pull in ruby
  (only ruby-libs) and ruby is invoked in the above Requires: ... line
- Should use %{ruby_sitelib} and %{ruby_sitearch} for consistency with perl
  and python
- The current %{ruby_sitedir} definition actually defines %{ruby_sitearch}
- Is there a generic thingy that ruby extensions use akin to perl's "perl 
  Makefile.PL ; ..." and python's "python setup.py ..."?

Help from people who are familiar with ruby packaging would be appreciated.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.