[Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] Repository review

[Paul van Tilburg]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 09:39:04AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Upstream is involved in Rubygems development, I think, which explains
> the Debian-hate patrick received. 

Well, he shouldn't receive any Debian-hate nor should we.
The whole issue is a bit odd since I think all upstream would take
Debian comments into consideration.  My experience with all my non-Ruby
has been that way, they see it as helpful.  ONLY this atmosphere of
build-system constructive comments has been destroyed by the Debian
discussion.  They've gave constructive comments they look of eternal
whining.  We give comments on the build system to get a more consistent
source "universe" so to say...  it helps other distros as well
regardless if they have been able to package it (already/before).
Btw, Iam not implying that the Ruby-related upstream developers I
currently deal with are this way, they are very forthcoming.

> When sending such requests, I think it's important to first evaluate
> how other distros deal with it.  For example, FreeBSD[0] and
> Gentoo[1], which have browsable CVS repository, so you can search your
> package using Google.
> [0] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/
> [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-src/

This is true. But if a Makefile is crappy or the whole build-system has
a non-standard structure we have to do a lot more to get it in a
packagable state and so will all other distros. 

I know I am preaching to the coir here, but had to write this somewhere. :)
> 
> Since this package actually contains only a few files, you could
> probably package using only dh_install calls, instead of using setup.rb
> or the provided Makefile.

I agree.

> > |   |-- libxml-ruby
> >          -> This was planned to be managed by our team, but is it still?
> > |   |-- libxslt-ruby
> >          -> This was planned to be managed by our team, but is it still?
> 
> Maybe it would be better to seperate packages which have not been
> uploaded yet into a seperate directory, to make it easier to know which
> packages need which kind of work.

Agreed... packages-wip (work in progress)

> > |   `-- ruby-pkg-tools
> >          -> The sources file should be removed and also the part of
> >             pkg-ruby-get-sources that looks at it.
> >             Although, this is pending a prepared solution for upstream
> >             packages with watch-file problems such as for example
> >             ruby-locale.
> 
> Why not continue to use the sources file, but only for packages where
> watchfiles are not a solution ?

That is one possible solution.  Requesting the locale upstream to add
the version name might be considered Debian-whining :)

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/20060808/68bfabc0/attachment-0001.pgp