Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?

[Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net>]

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