On Nov 19, 2008, at 6:52 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Karanbir Singh wrote: >> projects.centos.org solves this very problem :D >> >> But we would need a standard for the specs to get adopted, and >> working >> with atleast the Fedora standards would be a good place to start. > > For gems I think adoption of the generated spec files from gem2rpm is > quite okay - those specs look very clean. Find one attached. > The generated spec file is perhaps a little bit unnecessarily ornate. For starters, I know of no reliable or wide-spread usage atm for Provides: ruby(foo) so feel free to use that rather than Provides: rubygems(foo) A separate namespace for rubygems(...) is unlikely to be widely adopted imho, feel free to use ruby(...) instead. Also please note that there is little reason to add ruby peculier Provides: for any reason yet. The world of RPM is littered with various Provides: that seemed like a good idea to someone but never actually caught on. If you do want to attempt ruby specific dependencies, focus on extracting Requires:, the Provides: are very easy to retrofit where needed once the Requires: reach a certain level of usage. OTOH, additional Provides: wrapped in their own foo(bar) name space hurt nothing whatsoever. But KISS is always better imho. 73 de Jeff