On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 04:19:09AM +0900, Fumitoshi UKAI wrote:
> At Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:32:43 +0100,
> Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > Well, in only introduces two packages. The role of package 'ruby' was
> > changed because of what I hear most in the community that people expect
> > 'apt-get install ruby' to provide them with the full Ruby interpreter +
> > stdlib environment.
> > 'ruby-core' was introduced analogous with x-window-system-core,
> > gnome-core, etc. People who know what they are doing can install the
> > more lean version, mine preferred option anyway.
> > And well... 'ruby-interpreter' is a natural consequence of the two
> > things above.
>
> If we take this option, I think we should change ruby1.8 as well,
> otherwise it would be confusing. ruby means standards set of ruby,
> whereas ruby1.8 means ruby1.8 interpreter only.
Yes, that was something I felt about the proposal too, although it only
tried to define the structure of the top (i.e. non-versioned) layer anyway.
Do you intend to have a <ruby1.8> version of every <ruby> meta-pkg?
> I prefer 'ruby1.8-bundle' or so for full set of ruby upstream package,
That might be a nicer name and make intuitively clear what this source
pkg is, yes.
> instead of changing meaning of 'ruby'.
What do you mean?
Do you imply that the top level meta-pkg should be ruby-bundle or..
Sorry if I am asking for this many clarifications, but my experience is
that these discussions lead to some misunderstanding because a lot of
package names and aliases/meta packages are involved.
> > > However I like an idea of making a meta package like
> > > ruby-stdlib. so another proposal from me to solve this
> > > problem is:
> > >
> > > - make a meta package like rubyX.Y-stdlib in rubyX.Y, which
> > > has all dependencies of the packages built from Ruby. If
> > > you don't want to install some package in them, you can
> > > just install the packages you want from them so that you
> > > can see which packages are provided from Ruby now.
> > >
> > > - make a meta package like ruby-stdlib in ruby-defaults,
> > > which has a dependency of rubyX.Y-stdlib according to the
> > > initial policy of ruby-defaults. I mean it works for
> > > providing the current stable version.
> >
> > I as well thought ruby-stdlib would be best, it is a solution too,
> > although now I prefer the stair-like solution I'm trying out now.
>
> So, the point is
>
> a) ruby1.8-stdlib depends lib*-ruby1.8 from ruby1.8 source
> except libtcltk-ruby1.8, libtk-ruby1.8
> ruby-stdlib depends ruby1.8-stdlib
>
> b) ruby1.8-core is ruby1.8-stdlib + ruby1.8, irb1.8, rdoc1.8
> ruby-core depends ruby1.8-core
I would suggest the other way around since lib{tcltk,tk} is known to be
a part of stdlib.
> Supposed that we're trying to introduce new meta package for
> novice's convenience, I feel ruby1.8-core would be better and
> wonder ruby1.8-core depends/recommends ri1.8 as well and
> recommends/suggests ruby1.8-examples and ruby1.8-elisp.
My definition/interepretation of the '-core' suffix is that it selects
the absolutely essential packages necessary, so that the user might select
the rest if he wants to. I am not even sure why we put irb in ruby-core, even.
It's like installing GNOME... install gnome and you get it all, install
gnome-core and you get the essential libs and apps and you can select
individual libs/apps while you work.
> I'd also like to add to ruby policy that it is not recommended that
> debian package depends on ruby1.8-core. Package maintainer should
> know which package is required and declare dependency as small as
> possible.
Yes, indeed. This brings us also to the versioned depends on 'ruby'
that are out there. If we are going to change things, bugs need to get
filed. I don't think most of the maintainers (the ones I've spoken at
least) don't mind changing/fixing it all very quickly so the transition
might take plays. Also sarge is getting near...
Is it possible that you can create a file like the one in the orignal
post of this thread by Adeodato Simó, so I/we can get a clearer overview
of what's in your head (maybe add *ruby1.8* things to?)?
Thanks!
Paul
--
Student @ Eindhoven | JID: paul@luon.net
University of Technology, The Netherlands | email: paulvt@debian.org
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG: finger paul@luon.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature