[aur-general] Merging ruby-jekyll into a single package
Hi there! Jekyll is currently a bit of a mess on the AUR. There's packages for several "plugins", like ruby-jekyll-pagination, and several others. However, these are not plugins in the traditional sense of the word: jekyll won't run if they're not installed, so they're more like libraries. Libraries that are only used inside jekyll and are not designed to be used independently. So there's very strong codependency. ruby-jekyll-pagination and ruby-jekyll end up depending on each other mutually. Again, "-pagination" is merely an example, there's plenty of these. Someone suggested merging these into a single package: they're diferente upstream gems, but only work in unison, and are useless separately, so I'm inclined to simplify this on our side (KISS, right?). Would this course of action be deemed appropriate? Is it acceptable? I know we usually don't bundle stuff like this in AUR, but this seems like a strong exception, since we're talking about packages with mutual codependency. Thoughts? Opinions? -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
One problem is that the different gems have different upstream versions (ruby-jekyll 2.5.3, ruby-jekyll paginate 1.1.0, etc). However, ruby-jekyll should definitely depend on all of its dependencies, which it does not do currently. Hugo Osvaldo Barrera <hugo@barrera.io> writes:
Hi there!
Jekyll is currently a bit of a mess on the AUR. There's packages for several "plugins", like ruby-jekyll-pagination, and several others.
However, these are not plugins in the traditional sense of the word: jekyll won't run if they're not installed, so they're more like libraries. Libraries that are only used inside jekyll and are not designed to be used independently.
So there's very strong codependency. ruby-jekyll-pagination and ruby-jekyll end up depending on each other mutually. Again, "-pagination" is merely an example, there's plenty of these.
Someone suggested merging these into a single package: they're diferente upstream gems, but only work in unison, and are useless separately, so I'm inclined to simplify this on our side (KISS, right?).
Would this course of action be deemed appropriate? Is it acceptable? I know we usually don't bundle stuff like this in AUR, but this seems like a strong exception, since we're talking about packages with mutual codependency.
Thoughts? Opinions?
On 2015-05-16 17:30, Allen Li wrote:
One problem is that the different gems have different upstream versions (ruby-jekyll 2.5.3, ruby-jekyll paginate 1.1.0, etc).
However, ruby-jekyll should definitely depend on all of its dependencies, which it does not do currently.
This would cause a circular dependency. Or should the plugins not have jekyll as a dependency (even though they can only be used via jekyll)? On 2015-05-16 17:20, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Hi
The simplest and the most logical way to handle it is to follow upstream packaging. It means keep gems in its separate arch packages and avoid bundling.
There is a tool called gem2arch (https://github.com/anatol/gem2arch) that automatically updates PKGBUILD files, generates new packages if needed. Managing gem dependencies is hard and gem2arch was implemented to make the package management automatic.
The problem isn't so much as a maintainer, but rather for downstream users (circular dependency issue, or too many packages for just one actual program). -- Hugo Osvaldo Barrera A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?
Hi On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera <hugo@barrera.io> wrote:
Hi there!
Jekyll is currently a bit of a mess on the AUR. There's packages for several "plugins", like ruby-jekyll-pagination, and several others.
However, these are not plugins in the traditional sense of the word: jekyll won't run if they're not installed, so they're more like libraries. Libraries that are only used inside jekyll and are not designed to be used independently.
So there's very strong codependency. ruby-jekyll-pagination and ruby-jekyll end up depending on each other mutually. Again, "-pagination" is merely an example, there's plenty of these.
Someone suggested merging these into a single package: they're diferente upstream gems, but only work in unison, and are useless separately, so I'm inclined to simplify this on our side (KISS, right?).
Would this course of action be deemed appropriate? Is it acceptable? I know we usually don't bundle stuff like this in AUR, but this seems like a strong exception, since we're talking about packages with mutual codependency.
Thoughts? Opinions?
The simplest and the most logical way to handle it is to follow upstream packaging. It means keep gems in its separate arch packages and avoid bundling. There is a tool called gem2arch (https://github.com/anatol/gem2arch) that automatically updates PKGBUILD files, generates new packages if needed. Managing gem dependencies is hard and gem2arch was implemented to make the package management automatic.
participants (3)
-
Allen Li
-
Anatol Pomozov
-
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera