[Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] Repository review

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 03/08/06 at 16:38 +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> 
> I would like to start doing (about) bimonthly reviews of the repository. 
> What does it mean?  Well, I'll just go through everything and try to
> provide an overview of things that look odd, need to be updated or
> removed.  Why can't I just fix everything?...  Well, doing all is a lot
> of work, and we are a team right?  Besides, I don't like to touch
> everything since some people might have plans which I don't know about. 
> Ok, here we go (things that are fine, are removed/not mentioned)...
> 
> /home/paul/Debian/pkg-ruby-extras
> |-- packages
> |   |-- libgems-ruby
>          -> All looks good. How are the experiences of this package in
>             experimental. Do we think it's ready for unstable (and thus
>             let it make Etch)?

That would be great.

> |   |-- libinline-ruby
>          -> Needs reviewing by experienced Debian packagers.
>          -> Upstream does not have a real build/install system.  Patrick
>             has changed the structure to be able to use setup.rb. Is
>             this the right choice?
>             Patrick is requested upstream to use a better build/install
>             system & structure for the next release.

Upstream is involved in Rubygems development, I think, which explains
the Debian-hate patrick received. 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/

Ok, in this case, it doesn't help: gentoo doesn't have ruby-inline, and
FreeBSD is totally outdated (v.2.2.0).

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.

> |   |-- 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.

> |-- tools
> |   |-- gemsd
>          -> What does this directory contain? What is the plan for its
>             contents?

I think that Daigo's goal was to create a rubygems->deb converter.

> |   `-- 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 ?
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas at lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas at nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
-------------- 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/20060808/95f24668/attachment.pgp