Hello Vincent, Vincent Fourmond escreveu isso aí: > I have completed a first draft of an official up-to-date policy for > packaging Ruby-related software for Debian. Ideas found in this policy > mostly come either from my understanding of the discussions on this > list, or from the resulting code in gem2deb. The draft can be found there: > > git+ssh://git.debian.org/git/pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-policy.git Thank you very much for leading this effort. > Please feel free to review/comment and contribute to modifications. My > intention is that this document becomes normative in the same way that > the Debian Policy is, which means we could file RC bugs on packages not > complying with a MUST directive. I have made two changes to the text. The is related to something I posted here on the list some days ago: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-policy.git;a=commitdiff;h=8940834a13b30ab777b588d0b32090bb938dacbd We should let the choice of default interpreter to the 'ruby' package, and depend on it (or ruby-interpreter). The second is a major review on the interpreter section, based on my understanding of the current state of the discussions and implementations: http://git.debian.org/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/ruby-policy.git;a=commitdiff;h=178cb05e15aabb442d31c7bb5594886d1ccd3de6 The only point I think could be polemic is: Ruby interpreters &may; provide the <literal>ruby-interpreter</literal> virtual package, if their maintainers consider that the implementation is mature enough to support most Ruby software available. My opinion is that we should not force interpreters to provide ruby-interpreter, but make sure that only 'sane' interpreters (whatever that means) provide ruby-interpreter. Perhaps we should also discuss a non-bureaucratic procedure to "certify" interpreters as eligible to provide 'ruby-interpreter'. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org> http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature