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

[Paul van Tilburg]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:06:29PM +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> 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.

I haven't had any time for it so it seems, but it might also be nice to
resolve the clean/distclean issue and a fixup of the Ruby source-
download tool in 0.4.

> > >     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...

That is true. We can do that.

> > 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?

It should, providing the distclean doesn't crash because of the error in
the upstream setup.rbs.  I'll make some time to patch setup.rb, I already
have an improved version lieing around.

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/ec5e42d8/attachment.pgp