Re: So what needs done / packaged?
On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:45:32PM +0200, Mauricio Fernández wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 04:52:23PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > 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.
No, I don't think so either. But conforming to the current draft policy
already would be nice. When renamed and stuff, I can try to build them
here (I don't believe there were powerpc packages :)) and have a look
if they can be uploaded. Are they ruby-version dependent anyway?
Are they up-to-date with current Fox upstream releases?
> 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.
Ah, yeah, that's a whole different approach, system-wide comparing to
extract-and-run :).
Paul
--
Student @ Eindhoven | JID: paul@luon.net
University of Technology, The Netherlands | email: paulvt@debian.org
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG: finger paul@luon.net
Reply to: