Re: ITP: libcmd-ruby -- library for building line-oriented command interpreters in Ruby
On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 02:20:34PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 06:32:16PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 14, 2005 at 03:10:08PM +1000, Mike Williams wrote:
> > > On Thu, April 14, 2005 13:16, Marcelo E. Magallon said:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 01:05:25PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Note: I have an ITP open on libformatr-ruby (#295171) and both this
> > > > > library and formatr are very small, so I am hesitant to put them in
> > > > > their own packages. I plan instead to create an aggregate package
> > > > > (libruby-extras or something) with non-standard ruby libs that are
> > > > > helpful.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't do that.
> > >
> > > Neither would I.
> > >
> > > David, I urge you package these libs separately, even though they're
> > > small. That way, both the package descriptions and version numbers will
> > > make more sense wrt upstream.
> >
> > OK, agreed, but that doesn't mean we can do it together or form a team
> > for more (small) packages and maintainers to join :)
>
> I don't think I agree yet. When the packaging itself is as big or bigger
> than the library it becomes really silly. We have a lot of precedence for
> these things in debian already, with various -extras packages. Also note
> that creating a zillion little libraries adds extra load on the ftpmasters,
> and also on our users who will have to manually select each and every
> library they need.
We might take Ruby Stdlib route then... for now there are only two small
packages. If we accumalate more, we could bundle them and still have
virtual packages pointing at this one, if someone just wants the `cmd'
library.
However, the significant difference with stdlib is there are several
upstream sources, so the syncing/versioning/bundling problem will get bigger,
the many different upstreams are involved.
> This is the same problem that ruby users complained about Debian's
> packaging before.
Yes, but I recall that this was only related to split up of packages
which belonged to one source AND there was no easy way to get them all
(special case being the stdlib).
If I need the log4r library, I really look for liblog4r-ruby, do you
not?
Paul
--
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
Reply to: