On 01/03/11 at 10:44 +0100, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: > On 02/27/2011 04:31 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Ideally, we would have binary packages named like that: > > ruby-foo: arch-indep part of the foo library > > ruby1.8-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.8 > > ruby1.9.1-foo: arch-dep part of the foo library, built for ruby1.9.1 > > Here you're basically at a point where Python was years ago - one binary > package for every supported version. i think you should find a way to > move the whole stuff for all ruby versions into one package and find a > proper way to handle dependencies and whatever else is needed.
Here we are only discussing Ruby libraries that ship .so files. For pure-ruby libs (which is the vast majority of ruby libs), we have a solution already, with only one binary package. I think it's reasonable to have one package per ruby implementation for native packages. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110301101724.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info
