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

Re: RFS: ruby-mocha


Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> On 31/03/11 at 10:52 -0700, Antonio Terceiro wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I need one DD to upload ruby-mocha. It is in our new set of git
> > repositories, more specifically at:
> > 
> > git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-mocha.git
> > 
> > I will be able to do further uploads on my on as a DM.
> > 
> > After the package enters the archive, I will request the removal of
> > the libmocha-ruby*. 
> Looks quite good.
> Have you tested upgrades? I'm wondering whether we shouldn't add
> transition packages (and have have an helper too that generates the
> debian/control entry for those metapackages, since we will have lots of
> them).

Good point. Actually, using transitional packages would be the only way
to get the packages upgraded automatically in the case they were
installed directly (as opposed to installed as a dependency of other

On the other hand, having the transitional packages will defeat one of
our objectives: to have no lib*-ruby packages in the archive. Also, if
we do use transitional packages you will end up with *a lot* of them in
the archive.

I saved the list of binary packages listed in the output of your UDD CGI
script on /tmp/packages and checked how many transitional packages we
would need:

$ sed -e '/^lib/!d; s/1.8//; s/1.9.1//' /tmp/packages | sort -u | wc -l

Since ruby-foo would Replace/Provide/Conflict with libfoo-ruby,
libfoo-ruby1.8 and libfoo-ruby1.9.1, then I removed the version suffixes
and then obtained the list of unique library names.

IMO using transitional packages would be OK for a few packages, but
having 363 transitional packages seems dirty to me.

Alternatively, we could do the following for every ruby-foo packages
that gets in the archive:

  0) Ping maintainers of reverse dependencies and ask them to depend on
  ruby-foo instead of libfoo-ruby

  1) Request removal of libfoo-ruby from the archive. Even non-updated
  dependencies on libfoo-ruby will then be provided by ruby-foo anyway.

Additionally, we could also provide a tool (update-debian-ruby?) that
detects all lib*-ruby* installed on the system and proposes the user to
install the equivalent ruby.* packages (what would then trigger the
removal of lib*-ruby* packages).

Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: