Re: gem2tgz (was "Team documentation on wiki.d.o")
On 11/10/10 at 14:43 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> > On 10/10/10 at 04:23 +0200, Vincent Carmona wrote:
> > > 2010/10/9 Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>:
> > > > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> > > >> I think that it would be better to have a separate tool that does the
> > > >> gem2tgz conversion properly. That tool could then be used by gemwatch.
> > > >
> > > > Ok.
> > > >
> > > > Would you say that the conversion done by gemwatch is good enough
> > > > already, or is it missing something?
> >
> > I'm not too familiar with the conversion done by gemwatch.
> >
> > It would be nice to dump the gem metadata in a yaml file in the root of
> > the tarball, so it can be reused by a tgz->dsc tool.
>
> ok, that's exactly what gemwatch already did.
>
> > > I think that Lucas means that gemwatch can use a tool (i.e. gem2tgz)
> > > to do the conversion but gemwatch and this tool must be 2 separate
> > > projects.
> >
> > well, very lightweight "projects", then. :-)
>
> Since gem2tgz might be useful for others than Debian, I thing they
> should be 2 separate things indeed.
>
> So, there it is: I extracted the gem/tarball conversion logic from
> gemwatch and created gem2tgz.
>
> svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-ruby-extras/trunk/gem2tgz
>
> I would appreciate some review (and eventually sponsoring ;))
>
> I've also changed gemwatch to use it, but having the new code in
> production will require uploading a lenny backport of gem2tgz and
> getting it installed on alioth.
Hi,
I haven't looked at it in details, but was wondering whether it wouldn't
fit better in ruby-pkg-tools. I don't think that we should have several
packages containing scripts for the packaging of ruby libraries.
- Lucas
Reply to: