Re: Packaging Depends For Tests/Examples
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:00:34AM +0200, Will Daniels wrote:
> I have another packaging question, which is not exclusively ruby
> related, but I don't see a "general" packaging mailing list, except
> maybe policy, but I think this is more a judgement call than a matter of
The (general) ruby-devel is a good list for these things.
> If a lib ships with examples/tests that require extra dependencies to
> run, would you normally add those superficial depends and include them,
> or include the files and document the extra dependencies somewhere, or
> separate them into a different package or something?
I think it's worthwile to add these build-dependencies and run the tests.
Even more so if we are talking about a Ruby extension, that will be
autobuild on other architectures!
Coincidentally, there was some discussion about this on the #debian-ruby
IRC channel a few days ago. What to do if you need to patch the tests
because they use all kinds of gems or are incompatible with Ruby 1.9.1,
how far should we go?
> Just wondering if there is some established convention on this.
That is a good question, I actually don't really know.
I've seen that Lucas added the suggestion to add tests to the build
target if there are any on the Ruby 1.9.1. transition wiki page.
So maybe I've missed something.
PhD Student @ Eindhoven | email: email@example.com
University of Technology, The Netherlands | JID: firstname.lastname@example.org
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181