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

[Filipe]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:

> 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.

Me too! But.. It would be interesting if rails source package provided
this package. Why don't you try to talk with rails package maintainer to
break rails package in many small packages, nd make rails depend on
them? This way things are beatiful.

Otherwise if you install ruby and active record you will have the same files
at /usr/share/rails/activerecord/lib and /usr/lib/ruby/1.8 , and for
sure someone wil have problems with this (loading wrong files with
rails, etc).

But if the rails guy do not want to split, then go for it...

filipe {
  @              icewall.org
  GPG         1024D/A6BA423E
  http://filipe.icewall.org/
}


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHlnJzmKFbPqa6Qj4RAob8AJ9gKDUXKgMks4zz0a1hInh+NoIPmACdHbwQ
wws7Kgw4f2R/TdedjMxiF6Q=
=T1Ff
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----