On Jan 7, 2008 12:39 AM, Cyril Brulebois <
cyril.brulebois@enst-bretagne.fr
> wrote:
Hi all,
some time ago, I've been asked to modify a bit my libgv-ruby (graphviz
bindings for ruby), so as to make it usable out of the box. Currently,
the trick is about exporting RUBYLIB. The bug reporter (which I believe
is on this list, hello) also spoke about the upcoming ruby1.9 switch,
and I'd like to know what its status is.
So, here are some questions and remarks.
As far as I can see, the ruby-defaults package hasn't been updated yet.
Any timeframe planned? AFAIUI, all ruby-related packages will have to
migrate at the same time, right?
I guess I should express any build-time dependencies the same way as the
dependencies, using ruby >= foo, ruby << foo+1. So I'd like to know
whether the next release is going to
1.10 or something else.
(Note that I'm also B-D'ing on rubyfoo-dev, but I need /usr/bin/ruby to
be the target one, given how the detection is done.)
You also state in the policy the following:
,---
| The package name libfoo-ruby should be used for a dummy package that
| depends on libfoo-rubyX.Y that is packaged for default version of ruby
| X.Y. By using such a dummy package, user can easily follow upgrading.
`---
I'm wondering whether a libfoo-ruby package could contain both X.Y and
X.(Y+1) versions at the same time, so as to reduce the number of
binary packages. I'm probably not going to do so and only support the
default version anyway, just curious. :)
I read the "module path" section in the policy draft as quite ambiguous
since it might be about pure-ruby modules or about bindings modules
(like the .so I'm shipping), maybe you could clarify that?
Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois
PS: I'm setting Reply-To since I'm not subscribed. Thanks.