On 12/22/2011 09:09 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:

- "Since the Gem is installed using RPM, you must exclude the .gem file"

Can this be a "should" and/or something that is encouraged but not mandatory (perhaps recommend this be shipped as a supporting file, such as a %doc or a file in a debug package). Not a blocker for me, but would be nice to provide the original gem as part of the tarball for local reference

Well, I believe that "should" does not solve anything, because whenever you'll like to use the gem, you realize, that you are out of luck, because you are using gem without the cached package by coincidence.

Could you elaborate what is your usecase? I use the local gem only by calling "gem pristine" and this call should be replaced by RPM equivalent. So I see no reason to keep the gem. It is just unnecessary payload.

Aight fair enough. Not a biggie for me as the package can be easily d/l from rubygems.

- Do we still need the "Packaging for gem and non-gem use section", can't we get rid of that all together?

Well, there is the legacy note which should warn the packagers. Actually I agree with you that we should get rid of it. However, there are gems which still have the ruby- subpackage and they would be outlawed by this change immediately.

What are opinions/suggestions? May be we could setup some deadline, when we should get rid of them ...

That's a good idea. Any idea on how many gems still ship a non-gem subpackage?

- Should the "Ruby Applications" section be located under "Rubygems". 

They should be h2, i.e. on the same structure level as Rubygems.

We can get rid of that and the bit about "these naming guidelines only apply to ruby packages whose ..." in the "Naming Guidelines" section by including the following in the initial "Ruby Packaging Guidelines" section at the very top:

These guidelines only apply to ruby packages whose main purpose is providing a Ruby library; packages that mainly provide user-level tools that happen to be written in Ruby do not need to follow these naming  guidelines, and should follow the general Packaging Guidelines instead.

Actually, I like to have separate section, because there is a lot of confusion what is application and what is not, if something which is coming packaged as a gem could be application or has to be packaged as gem. For example, I remember review of "deltacloud-core", which is available as a gem, however, we extracted the gem out of original location, enriched it by init scripts etc. So at the end, from the resulting package, it is not obvious that the upstream is available as a gem.

So although the section is not exhaustive, I would like to provide better guidance to somebody, who likes to package something similar.

Sounds good to me.