[Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] request for review and upload of libfeedparser-ruby

[Esteban Manchado Velázquez]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 02:55:36PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 30/11/05 at 12:02 +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:21:27PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > libfeedparser-ruby is ready (from my POV) to be uploaded to Debian.
> > > Could somebody review it and upload it if it's ok ? (I'm not a DD)
> > 
> >     I just reviewed it and it seems OK, but before uploading, I would like to
> > ask: should I upload it as is (i.e. with a -dev package), or wait a little
> > until we decide what to package, and the names of the packages? If I upload
> > now and we change our mind, we will have a basically useless package in the
> > archive, and I don't see the point of uploading _right now_, as opposed to in
> > a week or so, when we have decided the package "structure".
> 
> We haven't reached a consensus about package structure, and I don't
> think we will reach one in the near future.

    Why not? We just have to talk a bit more, we have just begun talking about
it. And I don't think it's such a hard decision to make... (I only mean to
decide what packages, and their names, not all the details about their
contents)

> I personally think that examples and tests are needed in a binary package,
> and that they can't be in a -doc package since they aren't really
> documentation.

    As for the examples, I don't think they eat so much space it will be worth
splitting in another package, specially taking into account that the -doc
package will weight like 1 or 2 Mbs. And if I choose to install the library
documentation, I'll probably want a couple of examples as well...

    As for the tests, I still don't get why they should be into a binary
package. The only thing I remember you said about it was that you wanted to be
able to test all the packages regularly, but I don't see the need to have the
tests live in some binary package. I mean, if you really care (as the package
user) about having the package work correctly, simply download the sources
and have the tests run. And I would _hate_ having my production servers make
lots of tests everyday for no reason (specially when running stable), so I'm
guessing here the tests would have to be somehow activated.

    I mean, most users don't care about package testing, and they probably
won't be filing bug reports, why not let the maintainers make the tests, in
such a way that is easy, for interested users, set them up themselves? And I'm
not even sure that letting the users test them will enhance the quality of the
packages, because they're running the same tests as the maintainer, but
anyway...

> The best is to pospone our decision about structure until the Ubuntu
> Automated Tests proposal starts releasing some code, so we know what we
> can do. This will probably happen in the next two or three months.

    I don't see any connection here. One decision is whether we want package
tests in the binary packages, and another one altogether is _how_ are we
going to make those tests...

> >     I have no problems uploading it without the -dev package, though, as we
> > know that the rest are definitive names...
> 
> Please do so. We could always Confict the -dev package in a later
> release.

    I know, but that will bring useless packages to the archive, and I don't
want FTP masters get angry with _me_ :-) Unless, of course, there is some
special reason to upload them now...

    Please, the rest of the mailing list members, thread.join! :-)

    Regards,

-- 
Esteban Manchado Velázquez <zoso at debian.org>
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20051203/e82b4ee5/attachment.pgp