Is there a reason this package doesn't say "provides: rubygems(rake)"

[bzanchet]

Hey there!

A question (not yet a PR because it's simple enough - just say the word and I can submit it): is there a reason this package doesn't Provides: rubygems(rake)? It seems to provide everything needed.

Asking because right now it's kind of a mess to install Ruby after installing Passenger - their package requires both rubygems(rake) and rubygems(rack) - although not really needed for my use case - see: https://github.com/phusion/passenger_rpm_automation/blob/master/specs/passenger/passenger.spec.erb#L84-L86

So, trying to install a newer version of Ruby through this rpm get yum into a spiral of downgrading dependencies that's unsolvable.

Ps.: still not sure how to avoid conflicts with rubygems(rack)

[bzanchet]

Also-- same question goes for ruby(rubygems), which is a dependency of the regular rubygems-rack package - see https://www.rpmfind.net/linux/RPM/fedora/devel/rawhide/ppc64/r/rubygem-rack-2.0.1-3.fc26.noarch.html

I guess there's not a lot of consistency when naming dependencies :)

[rossnick]

Hi bzanchet. Have you figured a way to install passenger cleanly with the rpm built here ?

[bzanchet]

Has been a while since I’ve last tried, but unfortunately the answer is “no” :(

I’ve been using ruby-install to install the version I need, and installing passenger along with the ruby version available on yum. Good enough, I guess..

[turnertg]

I hate to necro-bump such an old bug report, but I've recently had to solve this for a project and forked to my own account as such. If there is interest in supporting this upstream, I would be more than happy to prepare and submit a pull request with the necessary changes.

However, I do very well understand that the primary purpose of this repo is feedforce's own CI-CD, and that checking these extra gem versions coupled with a slightly hacky workaround to satisfy the libruby.so.2.0()(64bit) dependency of passenger may be undesirable!

If you don't want to support it upstream, would you be averse to me submitting a markdown wiki page/README.md section instead with the details of which dependencies need to be added to the SPEC file to appease passenger along with the short process of obtaining the RPM from a generated docker image? You have one of the cleanest and most complete system ruby RPM SPECs out there, and I can imagine that for the next couple years while CentOS 7 lives, there will be others finding your repo and asking the same.

Cheers!