Hi
On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 8:43 AM Tim Meusel <t...@bastelfreak.de> wrote: > Hi, > > On 14.06.22 21:18, Andreas 'Segaja' Schleifer wrote: > > On 6/14/22 10:17, David Runge wrote: > >> Hi Andreas, > >> > >> first off: Thanks for looking into this! I guess not all of the > >> packagers knows how complicated and time-consuming packaging ruby can > >> be. > >> > >> On 2022-06-01 23:05:45 (+0200), Andreas 'Segaja' Schleifer wrote: > >>> The problem is that in order to get this fully working we need to > >>> package > >>> all 74 stdlib ruby gems. Currently we have only packaged 9 of them from > >>> which 5 are in the AUR. > >> > >> If you have created a list somewhere and if I have some spare time, I'd > >> be glad to help package some. > >> > >>> My proposal to get this into a working state are these steps: > >>> > >>> - remove all gems from the ruby package which are already packaged as > >>> dedicated packages in [extra] or [community] > >>> - create a ruby-stdlib meta package which requires the existing ruby > >>> stdlib > >>> packages > >>> - make the ruby package require the new ruby-stdlib package > >>> > >>> These steps should clear up the situation for the few existing separate > >>> builds of the stdlib packages. > >>> Then we can successively package the other stdlib packages and once > >>> one is > >>> done remove it from the ruby package and add it as dependency to the > >>> ruby-stdlib package. > >>> > >>> Next week I can prepare the ruby-stdlib package and a patch to the ruby > >>> package to get the first steps of this plan working. > >> > >> As the ruby sources will drag in the vendored dependencies it could > >> prove beneficial to have ruby's PKGBUILD carry ruby-stdlib as a split > >> package (unless you think that complicates things). > >> That way it is easy to determine if a new vendored dep is added or > >> removed as well. > >> > >> Best, > >> David > >> > > > > > > > > Hello everyone, > > > > thanks for the words of support. Once we agree on a way to go I can > > generate some kind of TODO list (not in archweb) so that we know what we > > need to do. Also I would recommend that any new packaged gems should be > > source builds and if possible have tests enabled. > > > > I highly agree with this. We should move away from downloading blobs > from rubygems.org. > A bit of clarification here. gem files distributed via rubygems are *source* packages. It includes ruby/C/Makefiles/... that are compiled into binary blobs at the user side. Rubygems.org also allows the distribution of binary platform-specific packages (when ":platform" is set) but it is rarely used in practice. > As to the state of things and a patch for the PKGBUILD: > > > > I have a diff of the ruby PKGBUILD ready [0]. I’m adding another split > > package to the mix called ruby-stdlib which is defining the dependencies > > we already have. > > Furthermore I’m removing the stdlib gem from the base ruby package which > > we already have as a dedicated package. > > > > In the end we need to do this for all of the stdlib and bundled gems > > once they are packaged. Afterwards we can simplify the cleanup logic > > that happens in `package_ruby()` again. > > sounds good to me. > > > > > One more point I would like to bring up is that currently the ruby > > package [1] only has one maintainer (Anatol) and I think we should > > increase the bus factor for this package. I don’t consider myself an > > expert for ruby packaging, but I would be happy to help out. > > The only problem is that the package is currently located in [extra] > > where I don’t have write permissions to as a TU. What would be the > > effort / impact of moving this package (and other related ruby packages) > > to [community] to have more people (maybe also David or Tim) maintain it? > > As mentioned on IRC: I'm happy to help out and I think it would be good > for our package quality if more people could work on the Ruby package. > If that means it needs to be moved to community I'm +1 for the idea (not > that I could decide this). > > > We also should update the comments at the beginning of the PKGBUILD > > file, as it currently only lists people as “Contributor” and no one as > > “Maintainer”. > > > > Best regards > > Segaja > > > > [0] https://paste.xinu.at/Fve7R/ > > [1] https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/ruby/ > > >
