[Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] r134 - tools/ruby-pkg-tools/trunk

[Paul van Tilburg]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:51:33PM +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 11:25:07PM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > I think 0.4 is almost ready for release! What do you think?
> > The class seems to work with all my libs and even apps (not in Debian
> > yet), so that's fixed at least.
> 
>     It's OK with me.

Ok, I'll prepare an upload tonight.

> > There is some stuff left on the PackageTodo[1], but some can wait for
> > the next release.  Most of the stuff in the packages/ dir can almost go
> > in but a lot is pending ruby-pkg-tools 0.4.
> > The clean/distclean stuff remains to be an issue though.
> 
>     Part of the solution is upgrading the setup.rb in the package, right? That
> should be documented in the webpage.
> 
>     So, having a recent setup.rb, what problems are left unsolved? Sorry, but
> I keep forgetting O:-)

There are two issues here:
1. Some old setup.rb's do not support distclean correctly (for data/ it
   gives an error).  I have sent a patch upstream, it was accepted but
   I have seen no release since.  So, yes, this problem is fixable by
   asking upstream to update setup.rb.
2. Some apps generate a small library file containing compile-time info
   about paths and also clean it up.  This is done via setup.rb's hook
   scripts.  However running `distclean' does not seem to imply running
   clean scripts.  
  
For good source cleaning we need to run distclean, but there is no way
to figure out if we should've run clean before distclean.  At least, not
automatically.
So (2) requires a patch for setup.rb that also should be sent upstream. 
IMO it is right for distclean to call `clean' hooks additional to the
`distclean' hooks.

>    The pkg-ruby-get-sources issue should be trivial with Ruby.  We have
> open-uri.rb in the stdlib...  so I think the only thing left should be
> choosing the URL.

I know. I would like to leave that to terceiro, if he has the time.
If not, one of us could do it.  I think it can be administered
via our website (system).

Paul

-- 
Student @ Eindhoven                         | email: paulvt at debian.org
University of Technology, The Netherlands   | JID: paul at luon.net
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
-------------- 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/20051115/b8386adb/attachment.pgp