Re: Looking for ideas for merging a micro package...
Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:18 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery:
> tony mancill <email@example.com> writes:
> > Thank you for pointing this out. I just recently uploaded a script,
> > splitpatch, that I argued should be accepted as-is (i.e. as a "micro
> > package") because of the dependency on ruby.
> > Given that ruby is becoming more popular for scripting, what do folks
> > think about a catch-all package for ruby scripts? I don't have a good
> > feel for what the right trade-off is between:
> > * reducing load on the archive by consolidating these tiny packages
> > * making good use of maintainer's time, the implication being that
> > coordinating multiple (otherwise unrelated?) ruby scripts is going to be
> > more of a time commitment for the maintainer(s)
> > and
> > * making it easy (or even possible) for users to find these scripts when
> > the package name doesn't match upstream
> I think it makes a ton of sense to have several of these catch-all
> packages split by implementation language. The biggest advantage is to
> the maintenance of the catch-all package; most of us only consider
> ourselves highly experienced in, or comfortable in, one or two languages,
> and therefore it's harder to find maintainers who are comfortable with
> packages that mix a bunch of languages. It's also helpful to be tied in
> to the maintenance community for that language to weigh things like good
> modules to rely on or not rely on, how burdensome dependencies are, etc.
> There's also a minor advantage for the user who may not want to introduce
> a whole new interpreter to systems that are tight on space or that need to
> be kept simple.
> A moreutils-ruby (or some similar name) seems like a great idea to me.
> I would check with Joey first, though, just in case he disagrees with that
> reasoning and would prefer to include the scripts directly in moreutils.
> (splitpatch might make more sense in devscripts, but devscripts I think
> has the same set of constraints, albeit with different base languages.
> Python and Perl at the moment, I think.)
devscript had only Perl and Shell scripts initially, but then gained
Python scripts. I don't see any reason to not accept ruby script. ruby
would pull in another ~ 13 MB of storage, but devscripts targets
Debian & Ubuntu Developer