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

[Esteban Manchado Velázquez]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 05:04:23PM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> 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.

    But, if we always upgrade setup.rb before packaging, there's no problem,
right? That's what I meant. If we upgrade, most problems just go away...

> 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.

    Yes, it seems reasonable. Anyway, can we just call clean and distclean for
now (alway upgrading to a sensible setup.rb version)? Then, when we write the
patch (although there won't be no need, in that case), it should work with
both versions, right?

    Regards,

-- 
Esteban Manchado Velázquez <zoso at foton.es> - http://www.foton.es
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
-------------- 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/20051115/51d58936/attachment-0001.pgp