[Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] request for review and upload of libfeedparser-ruby

[Esteban Manchado Velázquez]

Hi all,

On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 10:02:57PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> [...]
> > > I personally think that examples and tests are neeed in a binary package,
> > > and that they can't be in a -doc package since they aren't really
> > > documentation.
> > 
> >     As for the examples, I don't think they eat so much space it will be worth
> > splitting in another package, specially taking into account that the -doc
> > package will weight like 1 or 2 Mbs. And if I choose to install the library
> > documentation, I'll probably want a couple of examples as well...
> 
> That's why I proposed that tests, examples and doc go to a -dev package.
> It seems this can be confusing, so I changed to a -doc package.

    OK, I saw your SVN commit. Before considering it a definitive decision, I
would like someone _else_ to say something about this, though.  That is:




    ***Anybody out there has anything against this package structure?***

    libfoo (dummy, default version)
    libfoo1.8
    libfoo-doc (documentation, including examples and unittests if appropriate)

    ***It's OK if we decide to _add_ more packages, the only important thing
here is _not removing_ any package***





> Another point in favor of unit tests in a binary package is that they
> can often be helful as documentation: they provide good examples of how
> to use the library, with which kind of arguments, etc... Therefore, I
> think that the decision to include (or not include) tests in a binary
> package should be a per-package (or per-maintainer) one.

    It's OK with me. My problem with tests was, mostly, having to package them
_always_, and having to design and maintain a number of conventions, to make
the execution of them all possible. I have no problems if tests are packaged
at maintainer's discretion and are treated as documentation (at least for
now).

> I was never thinking of automatically running unit tests on all systems
> which have the package installed.

    OK, great :-) Sorry for the misunderstanding.

> >     I mean, most users don't care about package testing, and they probably
> > won't be filing bug reports, why not let the maintainers make the tests, in
> > such a way that is easy, for interested users, set them up themselves? And
> > I'm not even sure that letting the users test them will enhance the
> > quality of the packages, because they're running the same tests as the
> > maintainer, but anyway...
> 
> What about other maintainers (which would be interested in monitoring
> the quality of ruby packages as a whole), or maintainers of Debian
> derivatives ?

    In those cases, if they are also developers (either Ruby package
developers or derivative developers), they'll probably have the sources for
the packages, too. That was my point: if someone is that interested in the
Ruby packages quality that he wants to run unit tests, he will probably
already have the sources for those packages anyway, so...

> >     I know, but that will bring useless packages to the archive, and I don't
> > want FTP masters get angry with _me_ :-) Unless, of course, there is some
> > special reason to upload them now...
> 
> I renamed libfeedparser-ruby1.8-dev to libfeedparser-ruby-doc (note the
> ruby-version-independance). I didn't change the content of the packages.
> If we decide later that we don't want unit tests, we can just remove
> them and keep the -doc package for rdoc & ri.

    I don't think having the tests as documentation is going to be a problem,
so again this is OK with me.

> >     Please, the rest of the mailing list members, thread.join! :-)
> 
> We might need to thread.awake first ;)

    :-)

    10.times do
        shout "EVERYBODY PLEASE JOIN THIS THREAD!"
    end
    thread.awake
    thread.join

-- 
Esteban Manchado Velázquez <zoso at debian.org>
EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es
Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever!
-------------- 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/20051204/b8cd32c7/attachment.pgp