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

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 04/12/05 at 21:48 +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> 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***

Maybe we should consider that silence means approval ;)

It would be great if libfeedparser-ruby could be uploaded before the
week-end: I'd like to work on making feed2imap use ruby-feedparser next
week, and I won't be able to upload a new feed2imap depending on
libfeedparser-ruby before libfeedparser-ruby is accepted. With the
currently slow handling of NEW, it might take some time before
libfeedparser-ruby is accepted.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas at nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |