[DRE-maint] Bug#462027: ITP: libactiverecord-ruby -- library that ties database tables to classes in Ruby

[Roberto C. Sánchez]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:39:03AM +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:57:30PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 09:35:06PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > [...] Have you spoken with the rails package maintainer about this
> > > and your other ITP?  Having duplicate copies of the same code lying
> > > around in the archive is something the security team has said they
> > > are actively discouraging.  Splitting these out from the rails
> > > package seems like the smarter way to go.
> > > 
> > In fact, I have not.  I have been asked to package these Ruby modules
> > and my methodology for determining whether or not they were in Debian
> > involved checking for current/previous WNPP bugs about them and then
> > checking for packages already in Debian with similar names.  Let's just
> > say that I am still in the "getting started" phase with Ruby.
> 
> That is good!  I always would have liked for libactiverecord-ruby to be
> separate from Rails.  
> You might also want to contact our Debian Ruby/Extras package team[1]. 
> We specialise in packaging Ruby libraries and Ruby applications.
> 
> Paul
> 
Paul and Ruby/Extras Team members,

For my work I have a need to package some Ruby modules.  I have filed
ITPs and I hope I have not stepped on anyone's toes.  The modules which
intend to package are libactiverecord-ruby[0], libactivesupport-ruby[1],
libflexmock-ruby[2], libopen4-ruby[3], and rubyluabridge[4].  As I
understand it, activerecord and activesupport are part of Ruby on Rails.
Based on David Nusinow's comments, it appears that these are currently
shipped as part of the Debian rails package.

If the team is not opposed, then I would like to package them
separately.  As Paul and David have indicated, this would be a positive
thing (I imagine because tracking bugs separately and updating the
packages separately will be easier and hopefully result in more timely
updates).  I would like some feedback before I begin packaging
activerecord and activesupport so as to not cause any disruption with
other people's packages.

Another module which has so far caused me some concern is flexmock[2],
which has the MIT license listed on its RubyForge project page, but
appears to have a slightly different license as listed on the package
home page and in the package source.  Is this something that someone has
previously encountered in Ruby modules?  If so, how is this dealt with?
Or is this something about which I need not worry for this package?  Any
comments and/or opinions are welcome.

At this time I am not certain if I will be joining the team as a
full-fledged member.  My interest is currently limited to the few
modules which I need for my work which are not already packaged for
Debian.  I am still getting started with Ruby, but I may become more
involved with the team and team maintenance activities as time goes on.

Regards,

-Roberto

[0] http://bugs.debian.org/462027
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/462028
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/462030
[3] http://bugs.debian.org/462032
[4] http://bugs.debian.org/462033

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com
-------------- 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/20080122/865c805e/attachment.pgp