Re: Are circular dependencies inside a source package OK?
On 03/01/2011 11:17 AM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> 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.
That shouldn't make a difference if you find a way to handle the
dependencies to whatever they link properly. Unfortunately i don't know
enough about th einternals of Ruby to make a really useful suggestion,
but I'm sure it would be possible to find a proper solution which
doesn't involve a lot of additional packages.
--
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprints: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Reply to: