Re: [Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers]
On 23/11/05 at 23:31 +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> > Therefore, I think ruby libraries should be packaged using two binary
> > packages :
> > - libxxxxx-ruby1.8: contains only /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/xxxx/* and the
> > copyright/changelog stuff.
> > - libxxxxx-ruby1.8-dev: contains examples, unit tests, rdoc
> > documentation, ri documentation.
>
> It's OK with me as long as all the stuff we decide to include in the -dev
> package is really much bigger than the library itself.
>
> Just one comment: wouldn't it be better having all the dev files
> documentation in a version independent package, like libxxxxx-ruby-dev
> (instead of libxxxxx-ruby1.8-dev)?
Unit tests and example scripts might be version dependant (actually,
they are, if they include a shebang).
> > About unit tests: it would be great to have a common architecture to
> > deal with our unit tests. This way, one could run a script on a regular
> > basis to check that all his installed packages still work correctly.
>
> I'm not sure I like this. I would prefer using the Ubuntu proposal (or
> something similar) for package testing, and somehow plug the own library unit
> tests into the distribution package framework. After all, the package
> maintainer is basically who needs/is interested in package testing...
The Ubuntu proposal is still not clear, but I think we could do both. If
we provide the unit tests in /usr/share/doc/libxmpp4r-ruby1.8-dev/test,
we can could still have a test file in debian/tests/ that run our tests.
Most ruby libraries already come with a test suite. I think it's easier
to just package them than to copy them to debian/tests/somewhere.
Also, tests are often good substitutes for examples when examples are
lacking.
> > About ri documentation: is there a debian package already generating
> > some of it, except the ri1.8 package itself ?
>
> What do you mean? Each package should generate its own documentation,
> right?
Well, do you have an example of a package which does it ? I couldn't
find any.
> > About rdoc documentation: it tends to be *big*. Here are some number
> > while generating XMPP4R's documentation :
> > [...]
>
> Wow. It's big indeed, and RI is more or less the same size, so it seems
> that if we include either RI or rdoc documentation (which seems like a good
> idea), the result is going to be _way_ bigger than the library.
I personally have never really liked ri. I use rdoc's html pages
most of the time. I don't think we should choose between RI and RDOC for
our users.
I think that one should have a deep look at diagrams generation in rdoc.
If we can fix it, then rdoc documentation will become much smaller and
won't be a problem.
Also, the -dev package is for developers. And developers want the doc if
it is useful. So I think we should definitely generate them.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: