On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:37:29AM -0600, Adam Majer wrote: > Jon Dowland 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. > > > > As a complete third-party, I'd be mildly interested in having > > activerecord as a separate package from rails in it's entirety. > > Why? What is the disadvantage of having it together with rails? I'm > assuming 7MB of diskspace (2MB archive) is not what is your main reason. Another reason would be is that Rails installs these libraries in /usr/share/rails/, not available to the other Ruby applications, because it is not in the search path. Camping for example, one of the many apps that just use activerecord and therefore for now depend on Rails, has to be patched to add /usr/share/rails/activerecord to the search path. While this obviously could be changed in the rails package too, the split will force us to redo the whole setup in a nicer way IMO. Regards Paul -- PhD Student @ Eindhoven | email: paulvt@debian.org University of Technology, The Netherlands | JID: paul@luon.net >>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature