[redland-dev] Questions about the maintenance of librdf binary Packages

[Benjamin Heitmann]

Hello Dave, and hello to the Redland-Dev mailing list.

I have a few questions regarding the current state of the maintenance of 
binary packages for redland.

Since a lot of the changes between redland versions are not added 
features but fixes for bugs with a high impact, it would be really good 
if the ability to benefit from the fixes would also exist for linux 
distributions which are not unstable or beta, but which are used by real 
end users.

Are there any plans to provide backports of current librdf binarys (and 
especially of librdf-ruby bindings) ? What other ways exist to approach 
the problem of distributing binary versions of librdf-ruby ? Is there a 
possibility of lending a hand to the people maintaining the binary 
packages ?

If there are currently no plans to change the way in which librdf binary 
releases are made, then let me ask this question:

Is it technically possible to distribute the ruby bindings as a gem ?

Mongrel compiles a few c files every time its gem is installed, and 
distributes a gem with binary files for its windows users.

But in order to compile the redland ruby libraries a wide range of 
libraries is necessary, from crypto libs, libraptor and librasqal to 
mysql libs. Also the SWIG process is involved in making the c files of 
librdf-ruby in the first place.


Having the newest version of redland et al available for every linux 
distribution would really benefit the development and speed of 
adaptation of semantic web applikation development in general, and 
Active RDF deployment in particular :)

sincerely, Benjamin Heitmann.