On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:27:56PM +0100, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
could we start with the discussion about the packaging guidelines for
Ruby once again? The discussion is very long and I guess everyone is now
lost in too many details.
I'd like to propose going over the whole guidelines, from a paragraph to
a paragraph, so it is clear what is okay and what is not and why.
From previous emails it looks like the discussion stalled and arguments
are only repeated over and over.
I believe whole Ruby SIG agreed on the guidelines. Would it help if more
people from SIG participate in this debate? Or would it be more specific
Specific examples of what's broken by the proposal I've advanced will
I'll have time to work on the guidelines after March 16th -- going to
a conference in the next few hours.
Ruby is not like Perl or Python. It has its own specific ways.
are usually not happy, when distribution change those specifics too
much. Some packages are hard to package into rpm and we need to do some
hacks around, which bring more comfort to packagers.
The first statement you make here is not true. Ruby is like Python and Php
and Java and Perl and OCaml and etc in these ways. Upstream communities
always have their ways of doing things that don't mesh with how software
should be packaged in a Linux distro. It's the job of the packaging
committee, packagers, and package reviewers to make packages that follow
best practices for a distro while living within the constraints imposed by
upstream software's technology and systems.