Re: So what needs done / packaged?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:52:23PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > http://www.fxruby.org/
>
> I found some packages using:
> deb http://freeride.rubyforge.org/debian/ deb/
>
> but yeah, they are not official. I haven't installed them at the time
> for an unknown reason (can't remember), so I don't know if they are of a
> good quality. But maybe someone can contact the creator and this list
> and get it sponsored?
That's me. I have packaged freeride and associated dependencies:
libfxscintilla1, libfxscintilla1-dev, libfox-ruby, libripper-ruby.
I think these packages wouldn't need much work if they were to be made
official. They do not comply with the proposed draft in a number of
minor issues (such as package naming, etc), but they're not too bad
otherwise.
FreeRIDE was a bit difficult to package since the upstream release
included the libs it depended on (including platform-dependent .so
libraries!), and it was meant to be unpacked & run in the same dir, so
I had to patch it to allow per-user properties, etc. I'm not following
FreeRIDE's development anymore, but so far I've had some positive feedback
concerning the packages and the only reported problems were PLBKAC
(ppl who didn't know how to use apt-get, etc), so they seem to work.
--
Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
Reply to: