On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 01:03:47AM +0200, Daniel Leidert wrote: > Hi there, > > the libruby2.x packages ship special versions of some gems. Also in Ruby 2.7 > parts were split out into gems and we already packaged them separately. So the > gem is available from libruby2.7 and ruby-<gem>. But libruby actually provides > at least a version of the gem and might in some cases be sufficient enough to > fulfill a depency. IMHO the libruby2.7 package for example should have: > > Provides: ruby-benchmark (= 0.1.0), ruby-bigdecimal (= 2.0.0), [..], ruby-rexml > (= 3.2.3), [..], ruby-yaml (= 0.1.0), ruby-zlib (= 1.1.0) > > IMHO the perl team does the same (e.g. check out perl-base) and it actually > seems rigth to me that we do this too. > > So for example we wouldn't have to fiddle with ${ruby:Depends} in rubocop. A > dependency on ruby-rexml would then be fulfilled by either libruby2.7 or ruby- > rexml (which I'm currently packaging). > > What are your thoughts? I think this is a good idea. Are you willing to do it? If yes just do it, or if not, please open a bug report so it doesn't get lost.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature