Re: Ruby packaging in wheezy: gem2deb, new policy, etc.
On 19/01/11 at 12:29 +0000, Alex Young wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:27 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 18/01/11 at 12:26 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Well, building a package should always (in a perfect world) include
> > > running its tests. Of course, build dependencies can be huge. But I
> > > don't think it is _that_ bad. And assuming we all build using
> > > pbuilder/cowbuilder (right? No, I don't always - but it is a factor
> > > that would push me to the right practices!), it would basically just
> > > mean a minor inconvenience.
> >
> > Sorry if it wasn't clear in my mail. The problem is that we are running
> > into a dependency loop:
> > package A requires B to run its test suite
> > package B requires A to run its test suite
> > which one should we package first, and how?
>
> The only way I can think that this situation could evolve is if the
> versions of A in each case here are different. Have you got an example
> of this?
Simple example:
rspec-mocks requires rspec-expectations to run the test suite
rspec-expectations requires rspec-mocks to run the test suite
So, we could package them separately without running the test suite, and
then enable the test suite later.
> > The only way to break the loop is to avoid running the test suite when
> > we first upload A, then upload B with the test suite enabled, then
> > upload A.
>
> Presumably this is a problem the CPAN Testers have solved somehow?
Once the core libs have been packaged, it's likely that loops get more
rare.
- Lucas
Reply to: