[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DRE-maint] Candidate new Ruby policy

Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:15:18PM +0200]:
> (...)
> Please reply to this mail, even if it's just to say "I'm OK with that".
> I would like to avoid moving further will all this without having broad
> agreement that this is the way to go.


> New rules:
> ==========

In general, yes, it looks like a very positive change. I feel the
current libfoo-ruby/libfoo-ruby1.8/libfoo-ruby1.9/libfoo-ruby-doc
split is unclear and dirty when not needed, and creates ugly
transition pains. Thanks for pushing this change! 

> [A] Ruby libraries must support as many as possible of the Ruby versions
>     available in Debian. That currently includes Ruby 1.8, Ruby 1.9.0
>     (soon 1.9.1), JRuby 1.0, and JRuby 1.1. (Should we drop JRuby 1.0?)
>     ruby-support --supported lists the versions that should be
>     supported.

See #522996 - AFAICT, while for some time there can be more than one
JRuby in testing/unstable, we should aim to having only one version in
stable releases (and reducing the time we have two
simultaneous). While I am not a JRuby user and have no idea on its
stability, keeping 1.0 around does not seem like getting us anything.

> (snip)
> [C] Ruby library package naming policy. Ruby library packages can
>     choose between two naming schemes:
>     only one ruby-xxxx binary package:
>        (...)
>     several ruby1.9.0-xxxx, ruby1.9.1-xxxx, jruby1.1-xxxx, as well as
>     a ruby-xxxx which is a simple dependency package:
>        (...)
>     Other packages can of course be provided, and named
>     ruby-xxxx-(doc|examples), but packages proliferation should
>     be avoided.

And of course, we should make a point on revising all current
packages, as (I hope) most of them will be converted to the first

> [D] Ruby library source package naming policy. New source packages
>     should be named ruby-xxxx, with xxxx being the name of the library.
>     Of course, there are lots of special cases here, and there might
>     be better names for the source package name of some libraries.

I don't have a strong preference for current libxxxx-ruby scheme over
this one or otherwise, although moving everything to ruby-xxxx will
require dependency information to be updated all over the archive,
while leaving libxxxx-ruby could leave them all valid. Why are you
proposing this change? 

>     Existing Ruby libraries can either change name (and adopt the
>     ruby-xxxx naming) or keep their existing name.

I understand this is to ease the pain - but it gets us to an
inconsistent state. I'd rather encourage people to do the naming
switch if one is to happen, if for nothing else, to keep users from
having two naming variations to search on.


Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973  F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF

Attachment: pgpTnRgnaT_M9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: