Re: New packaging guidelines for Ruby
|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
On 02/28/2012 05:39 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Yes, Ruby SIG is still against it, since there is known just one gem ATM which needs such treatment. Now I list several pros/cons: Pros: * It would allow ruby packages to follow the same steps as other packages. Cons: * More overhead for maintainers. * More confusion for new-commers, since this approach is not know in Ruby community and there is no best way how to achieve it.
If this notion of building from source is not known in the ruby community, I'd highly recommend everyone (fpc, the ruby sig, etc...) help make them aware of how important that is.
-- rex -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
[Home] [Fedora Legacy] [Fedora Desktop] [Red Hat 9 Bible] [Fedora Bible] [Fedora SELinux] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [KDE Users] [Fedora Tools]