Dne 20.1.2014 11:11, Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Mamoru TASAKA wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:00 PM +9:00:
> Achilleas Pipinellis wrote, at 01/20/2014 07:37 AM +9:00:
>> I know that both result to the same thing (if I remember correctly I
>> had
>> asked Vit about this in IRC), but I have forgotten their real
>> difference.
>>
>> My attention got caught by a comment Josef made in one of his reviews
>> [0], saying that rubygem-foo is the new syntax. If that's the case, I
>> would like to propose 2 changes:
>>
>> a) A reference in the wiki
>> b) An implementation for gem2rpm
>>
>> I guess b) could be fairly easy by changing the templates.
>>
>> By starting with these steps, there will be a push to use the new
>> syntax
>> from now on. What do you think?
>>
>> [0]:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=979749#c2
>>
>
> Please use syntax other interpreters do:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Perl?rd=Packaging/Perl#Perl_Requ...
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:PHP?rd=Packaging/PHP#Requires_an...
>
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml?rd=Packaging/OCaml#Require...
>
>
> i.e. use rubygem(foo), not rubygem-foo.
>
Additional explanation:
The idea here is that ideally like perl or so and pkgconfig(foo), etc,
this type of
dependency should be handled by rpmbuild _automatically_, i.e.
rpmbuild automatically
adds provides/requires rubygem(foo). Currently this is done by
gem2rpm, however if
this could be done on building rpmbuild side, it would be more
appreciated.
It is doable, but we should still clarify what does it mean, i.e.
1) is it rubygem(%{gem_name}) or
2) should it be rubygem(typical_file_you_should_require), where for some
gems, there might be more of these provides.
I think it would be good to do it for F21, since I am going to propose
guideline changes anyway. Hope I'll find some time to play with this.
Vít