On Sun, Nov 27, 2005 at 11:05:29PM +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote: > On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 12:36:33PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > [...] > > > > 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)? > > > > > > I think this is better too. The dummy -ruby package is meant for the > > > developer and so is the -ruby-doc package. Besides that, the > > > documentation isn't Ruby version dependent (in AFAIK all cases). > > > > As said in my other mail, examples are ruby-version-dependant if they > > include a shebang. > > But if that's the only difference, I wouldn't make a version for each Ruby > interpreter version. In that case, on top of that, we would have to make them > (I don't think upstream usually ship separate examples for each Ruby version). > I simply don't see the point, the user can call them as "ruby1.x example.rb" > if he wants to. Note also that if the script does #!/usr/bin/env ruby or #!/usr/bin/ruby it is a ruby-version-INdependant script anyway. > > I think test scripts often can be useful as documentation, especially > > when example scripts are not provided. > > Yes, perhaps in some cases, but, in how many of them? In any case, perhaps > we could provide them as documentation, but not try to execute them or > otherwise treat them as code. Indeed... test/ in debian/libfoo-(dev|doc|...).examples I don't think that any setup.rb, Package (in the future) does this installing of tests, they also just feature running them AFAIK. 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
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature