| 1 |
graaff 10/05/02 07:33:48 |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Modified: index.xml |
| 4 |
Log: |
| 5 |
Add extrachapter on our policy to add new packages. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Revision Changes Path |
| 8 |
1.11 xml/htdocs/proj/en/prog_lang/ruby/index.xml |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
file : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/prog_lang/ruby/index.xml?rev=1.11&view=markup |
| 11 |
plain: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/prog_lang/ruby/index.xml?rev=1.11&content-type=text/plain |
| 12 |
diff : http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/prog_lang/ruby/index.xml?r1=1.10&r2=1.11 |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Index: index.xml |
| 15 |
=================================================================== |
| 16 |
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en/prog_lang/ruby/index.xml,v |
| 17 |
retrieving revision 1.10 |
| 18 |
retrieving revision 1.11 |
| 19 |
diff -u -r1.10 -r1.11 |
| 20 |
--- index.xml 26 Apr 2010 19:52:20 -0000 1.10 |
| 21 |
+++ index.xml 2 May 2010 07:33:48 -0000 1.11 |
| 22 |
@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ |
| 23 |
</p> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
<pre caption="/etc/make.conf"> |
| 26 |
- <var>RUBY_TARGETS</var>="ruby18 ruby19" |
| 27 |
+<var>RUBY_TARGETS</var>="ruby18 ruby19" |
| 28 |
</pre> |
| 29 |
</body> |
| 30 |
</section> |
| 31 |
@@ -178,6 +178,70 @@ |
| 32 |
</section> |
| 33 |
</extrachapter> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
+ <extrachapter> |
| 36 |
+ <title>Policy for adding new Ruby packages</title> |
| 37 |
+ <section> |
| 38 |
+ <title>Overview</title> |
| 39 |
+ <body> |
| 40 |
+ <p> |
| 41 |
+The ruby herd gets a fair amount of requests to add new packages to |
| 42 |
+the dev-ruby category in portage. Unfortunately we often get a bit |
| 43 |
+defensive about this and the package requests just hang about. This |
| 44 |
+policy tries to outline our thinking on when to add new packages and |
| 45 |
+what you can do to enhance the chances of adding a new package. |
| 46 |
+ </p> |
| 47 |
+ </body> |
| 48 |
+ </section> |
| 49 |
+ <section> |
| 50 |
+ <title>Which packages should go to dev-ruby</title> |
| 51 |
+ <body> |
| 52 |
+<p>The dev-ruby category should only contain packages that provide |
| 53 |
+library code (e.g. dev-ruby/mime-types) and packages that are specific |
| 54 |
+to the ruby environment (e.g. dev-ruby/rake).</p> |
| 55 |
+ |
| 56 |
+<p>Specifically, applications written in ruby should *not* go to the |
| 57 |
+dev-ruby category by default, and they would not normally be |
| 58 |
+maintained by the ruby herd. For example, recently cucumber has been |
| 59 |
+added to the dev-util category, even though it is written in ruby and |
| 60 |
+started out as a spin of from the more ruby-specific rspec. However, |
| 61 |
+it now also has support for Java and it provides an application, so it |
| 62 |
+is much better suited for a more targeted category of dev-util.</p> |
| 63 |
+ |
| 64 |
+<p>For libraries and supporting code we tend to add these packages |
| 65 |
+only when they are a requirement for an application that gets added to |
| 66 |
+Gentoo, or a new requirement of said application.</p> |
| 67 |
+ |
| 68 |
+<p>Other packages only get added when there is sufficient demand. We |
| 69 |
+determine this by looking at the number of votes for a package, so |
| 70 |
+feel free to open a bug for it and lobby a few folks to add their |
| 71 |
+votes.</p> |
| 72 |
+ </body> |
| 73 |
+ </section> |
| 74 |
+ <section> |
| 75 |
+ <title>Why not add more packages?</title> |
| 76 |
+ <body> |
| 77 |
+<p>Having this policy may seem silly. Why not just add new packages as |
| 78 |
+people provide ebuilds for them?</p> |
| 79 |
+ |
| 80 |
+<p>In part we are reluctant to add many packages because they should |
| 81 |
+really fall under the responsibility of someone else. For example, |
| 82 |
+sup, the ruby mail client, fits much better to the net-mail |
| 83 |
+herd. After all, not all packages written in C are part of the c |
| 84 |
+herd.</p> |
| 85 |
+ |
| 86 |
+<p>In part we are also reluctant because once a package is added it |
| 87 |
+will increase our workload towards the future. Version bumps, security |
| 88 |
+issues, and QA within Gentoo must be kept up to date. On top of that |
| 89 |
+ruby has a bit of a reputation for code that sees a few frantic |
| 90 |
+releases and is than for all intents and purposes abandoned. Having |
| 91 |
+packages like that in the tree adds disproportionally to our |
| 92 |
+maintenance and takes away from providing you with an overall good |
| 93 |
+ruby experience on Gentoo.</p> |
| 94 |
+ </body> |
| 95 |
+ </section> |
| 96 |
+ </extrachapter> |
| 97 |
+ |
| 98 |
+ |
| 99 |
<dev role="lead">graaff</dev> |
| 100 |
<dev role="member">robbat2</dev> |
| 101 |
<dev role="member">a3li</dev> |
Archives