PR#855: Remove obsolete information about missing RPM support of Gems. - packaging-committee

packaging-committee

#855 Remove obsolete information about missing RPM support of Gems.

Merged 5 years ago by tibbs. Opened 5 years ago by vondruch.

vondruch/packaging-committee clarify-rpm-vs-gem into master

Remove obsolete information about missing RPM support of Gems.

Vít Ondruch • 5 years ago

af506f6

<a class="font-weight-bold ml-2" href="/fork/vondruch/packaging-committee/blob/e28c92f8f7682196425f3ab7736826bf22fb573f/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Ruby.adoc" title="View file as of e28c92f">guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Ruby.adoc</a>

<div class="btn btn-outline-secondary disabled opacity-100 border-0 font-weight-bold"> file modified </div> <div class="btn-group"> <span class="btn btn-success btn-sm font-weight-bold disabled opacity-100">+1</span> <span class="btn btn-danger btn-sm font-weight-bold disabled opacity-100">-1</span> </div> <a class="btn btn-outline-primary btn-sm ml-2" href="/fork/vondruch/packaging-committee/blob/e28c92f8f7682196425f3ab7736826bf22fb573f/f/guidelines/modules/ROOT/pages/Ruby.adoc" title="View file as of e28c92f"> <i class="fa fa-file-code-o fa-fw"></i> </a> <a class="btn btn-sm btn-outline-primary diffhighlightcollapse ml-2 pointer" data-toggle="collapse" data-target="#diffhighlight_1"> <i class="fa fa-fw fa-caret-up"></i> </a>

		`@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@`

		`==== Building gems`

		`- Since gems aren't a standard archive format that rpm knows about and they encapsulate both an archive format and information to build the ruby library building an rpm from a gem looks a little different from other rpms.`
		`+ Since gems aren't just archive format, but they encapsulate both an archive and information to build the ruby library, building an rpm from a gem looks a little different from other rpms.`

		`A sample spec for building gems would look like this:`

vondruch commented 5 years ago

RPM can expand .gem and its metadata since RPM 4.14, so the information
in guidelines is missleading. This change tries to rectify the situation
a bit.

vondruch commented 5 years ago

Not sure if the wording is clear enough, but the original information was not true in any way.