Re: About the Ruby packages split: a concrete proposal

[Adeodato Simó <asp16@alu.ua.es>]

* 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
  grab everything...

> 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
  'ruby-core'?

> 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 
> possible.

  Exactly, this is quite important as I mentioned in some other mail.

  Thanks for the follow-up.

-- 
Adeodato Simó
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.
                -- Oscar Wilde