https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821146
--- Comment #15 from Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14)
(In reply to Vít Ondruch from comment #13)
> Gil, I'm still wondering, why don't you package it just as a gem (see
> comment #4). What is the point of keeping the maven stuff and -javadoc
> subpackages around? They are not distributed with the gem version as far as
no this package isn't *just a gem* ...
the java library is required for build others project as sonar
what you fail to understand? when is specified that this package can be used
*only with jruby*?
I don't know. I am asking you to give me the answer and you say it is usable
even without JRuby. Then it probably makes sense to package it as you did, i.e.
to provide rubygem as a subpackage.
> I understand. I would like to see this package renamed to
> "rubygem-jruby-rack" and that is it. Is that some Java standard? Should
we
> clarify this with Java-SIG?
>
take a look here
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.
2F_Other_bundled_software
> Moreover, you should install the gem into standard Fedora's gem locations
> IMO, using standard gem macros. The
> "%{_datadir}/jruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/" was never intended to be used
on
> Fedora. I am not sure if that location even works (but you probably tested
> it, so we might want to disable it, to prevent its misuse).
>
repeat *only for jruby*
So you did that only for their 1.8 flavor?
No, that is not how we think we should operate. As long as I can install the
gem using plain gem install with my MRI or Rubinius, it is not JRuby only. May
be that is limitation of JRuby or RubyGems, but in that case, that should be
solved first with appropriate upstreams.
IOW if you claim that this is JRuby only rubygem, then "gem install" using MRI
should say to me "sorry, this is only valid for JRuby" and abort the
installation.
> Also, I am not Java, JRuby nor Rack expert, but I would say,
that you have
> overspecified requires. From my POV, the gem should depend just on
> "ruby(rubygems)" and nothing else and the reasoning is following: I have
> installed MRI and I do "yum install rubygem-jruby-rack". After that, I
can
> do:
>
> $ irb
> irb(main):001:0> p RUBY_DESCRIPTION
> "ruby 2.0.0p0 (2013-02-24) [x86_64-linux]"
> => "ruby 2.0.0p0 (2013-02-24) [x86_64-linux]"
> irb(main):002:0> require 'jruby-rack'
> => true
> irb(main):003:0> p JRuby::Rack::VERSION
> "1.1.13.2"
> => "1.1.13.2"
>
irb read also the internal jruby-rack.jar?
That was not the point obviously.
> and you see, it "works". It can be required. From the code, I would say
that
> this is design decision of upstream. So why you would force me to install
> all the dependencies you have listed in the .spec file right now?
dependencies? are essentially due to the fact that *this package is not like
any other rubygem(XYZ)*
because it *contains a java library*. as a result you should also consider
the dependencies used or
required by this latest, listed in the pom file
Of course. But all this depends on answers to previous questions. You said,
that the library is usable without JRuby, then it makes sense to have the
dependencies. So no need to over-stress it here again.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3zJuleAfqG&a=cc_unsubscribe