Hi,
On 13/04/2020 09:05, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> 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?
It is indeed a good idea, I already faced a similar issue in the past.
> 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.
I am already adding some changes in src:ruby2.7 to better support riscv,
I can add the Provides suggested by Daniel.
Cheers!
--
Lucas Kanashiro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature