Re: About the Ruby packages split: a concrete proposal
* Fumitoshi UKAI [Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:19:09 +0900]:
> I prefer 'ruby1.8-bundle' or so for full set of ruby upstream package,
> instead of changing meaning of 'ruby'.
Yes, changing meanings is always a pain, but the current 'ruby'
package does not follow "the principle of least surprise". ;-)
It seems that people do really expect 'apt-get install ruby' to
> So, the point is
> a) ruby1.8-stdlib depends lib*-ruby1.8 from ruby1.8 source
> except libtcltk-ruby1.8, libtk-ruby1.8
> ruby-stdlib depends ruby1.8-stdlib
> b) ruby1.8-core is ruby1.8-stdlib + ruby1.8, irb1.8, rdoc1.8
> ruby-core depends ruby1.8-core
> Supposed that we're trying to introduce new meta package for
> novice's convenience, I feel ruby1.8-core would be better and
> wonder ruby1.8-core depends/recommends ri1.8 as well and
> recommends/suggests ruby1.8-examples and ruby1.8-elisp.
Well, sounds like a good compromise. Would 'ruby' recommend
> I'd also like to add to ruby policy that it is not recommended that
> debian package depends on ruby1.8-core. Package maintainer should
> know which package is required and declare dependency as small as
Exactly, this is quite important as I mentioned in some other mail.
Thanks for the follow-up.
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
-- Oscar Wilde