Re: About the Ruby packages split: a concrete proposal
On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:44:42AM +0900, akira yamada wrote:
> At first, thank you for some proposals and many comments about
> ruby1.8-packages. And I am sorry for my late reply.
That's no problem, we all have our busy periods. :)
> My proposal about restructuring of ruby1.8-packages is below:
>
> - new libruby1.8 will have ruby libraries which package depends on
> "priority: required" packages, that is, libruby1.8 merges
> libsdbm-ruby1.8, libdl-ruby1.8, libpty-ruby1.8, libbigdecimal-ruby1.8,
> [...]
> and libcurses-ruby1.8.
>
> Of course, libruby1.8 provides/replaces/conflicts the packages.
>
> - libtk-ruby1.8 merged to libtcktk-ruby1.8.
>
> new libtcktk-ruby1.8 provides/replaces/conflicts libtk-ruby1.8.
>
> - other packages (ruby1.8, libruby1.8-dbg, ruby1.8-dev,
> libreadline-ruby1.8, irb1.8, rdoc1.8, ri1.8, libopenssl-ruby1.8,
> libdbm-ruby1.8, libgdbm-ruby1.8, ruby1.8-elisp and ruby1.8-examples) are
> left as it is.
What criteria did you use for this. We tried to leave out libraries
with depends on other libs as well but came to the conclusion that
since libgdbm and libopenssl are either base or standard, everyone will
have those installed almost always as well.
I agree with not including irb/rdoc/ri/ruby-elisp and ruby-examples
as well.
> - ruby1.8 suggests or recommends rdoc1.8 and ri1.8
>
> - packages of ruby-defaults also follows this new naming scheme.
>
> I think that "apt-get install ruby" should enable you to use most features
> of Ruby language. But I think also that it should not install many packages
> by dependency.
Yeah. indeed, but by means of suggests and recommands it can help pointing
the user in the right direction though.
> "Most" is the point under discussion. Someone may wish "ruby" means all
> packages of ruby upstream, someone may wish "ruby" means ruby interpreter
> and a few extension libraries, others may wish "ruby" means only mod_ruby
> (libapache-mod-ruby and libruby1.8). So It is difficult for me to accept
> changing the meaning of "ruby" (and ruby1.8), ruby1.8-stdlib, ruby1.8-core,
> ruby1.8-interpreter, etc.
>
> But ruby1.8-bundle is acceptable.
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2005/01/msg00011.html) Its meanings is
> clear for everyone.
The meaning is clear but what it is going to be use for not (to me at
least). Is this a proposed new name for the source package, a meta
package that installs everything, or...?
AFAIK 99% the people I speak think ruby installs the interpreter and the
assumed base libraries (seeing apt-cache show python2.3 (where most of
the library doesn't seem to be split of at all) and apt-cache show perl).
> I classified ruby1.8-packages by priority of packages that the package
> depends on. (And I made the proposal in above.) The result is:
>
> depends: required package and libreadline4
>
> - libreadline-ruby1.8
> - irb1.8
> - rdoc1.8
> - ri1.8
ri is rather big, and ri depends on rdoc.
Who hasn't got libreadline?
> depends: required package and libssl0.9.7
>
> - libopenssl-ruby1.8
>
> depends: required package and libgdbm3
>
> - libdbm-ruby1.8
> - libgdbm-ruby1.8
See remark above.
> depends: required package, libx11-6 or xlibs, tcl8.4 and tk8.4
>
> - libtcltk-ruby1.8
> - libtk-ruby1.8
Rather large set of depends, good thing to split this of.
> depends: emacsen
>
> - ruby1.8-elisp
Same here and only useful for emacs users anyway.
Thanks you for the reply,
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
Reply to: