On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 13:37:14 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka
<mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 06/15/2009 03:52 AM +9:00:
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/472621
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/472622
>
> Reported in Nov 2008.
>
> Is it really that difficult to fix it?
>
No, but I have not had the time to do it yet.
Well, actually these two packages are _the same_ (currently
versions of rpms on Fedora are different, however)
The difference is that ruby-sqlite3 creates non-gem ruby module,
while rubygem-sqlite3-ruby creates ruby gem.
Curret ruby packaging guideline says that [1]
"
Packaging for Gem and non-Gem use
If the same Ruby library is to be packaged for use as a Gem and
as a straight Ruby library without Gem support, it must be packaged
as a Gem first.
"
And we have the way and allow to create non-gem ruby module (rpm)
packages
as a subpackage of a package based on rubygem. So for this case
ruby-sqlite3 "srpm" must be obsoleted by rubygem-sqlite3-ruby "srpm"
and
ruby-sqlite3 "binary rpm" should be created as the subpackage of
rubygem-sqlite3-ruby.
And the ruby-sqlite3 package (as in the separate entity in CVS etc.) has to
be obsoleted.
I have had it on my TODO list for a while now, it's about time I tackle it.
Beat me to it if you will, I know I'll not be able to fix this in the next
4 days. Thanks in advance!
-Jeroen