Re: RFS: ruby-rubyforge and ruby-hoe (+ ruby-echoe)
Hi,
On 03/06/11 at 12:13 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Lucas Nussbaum's message of Tue May 24 23:59:26 -0700 2011:
> > On 20/05/11 at 09:32 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > Excerpts from Lucas Nussbaum's message of Thu May 19 23:04:57 -0700 2011:
> > > > On 19/05/11 at 14:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > > > Hello everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > At Lucas's suggestion, I've pushed a fixed ruby-hoe with the offending PDF file removed, so
> > > > > it should be uploaded for NEW processing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've also pushed a new package into the git repository, ruby-rubyforge. I tagged it as released
> > > > > already, sorry for that. If someone can upload that as well, I'd be eternally grateful.
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Hi Lucas, thanks for the thorough review. I'm a bit embarrassed how many
> > > things you found to fix. See below.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Usually, I do not bother with filing ITPs
> > >
> > > I won't anymore.. since I can look in the git repository to see if there
> > > is already work being done.
> > >
> > > I've made some fixes but alioth is down right now so can't push them up.
> > > So all of the things marked "Done" will be pushed when alioth returns.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ruby-hoe
> > > > ========
> > > > There are commented out lines in debian/control
> > >
> > > I left this there because minitest will be added here as soon as it is
> > > bootstrapped by having ruby-hoe available. Should we move these to
> > > README.source, to be removed when the tests are re-enabled?
> >
> > I'm not sure of what you mean: ruby-minitest is available in Debian.
> >
>
> Alright, done, tests run and pass on ruby 1.8 and 1.9.1 now (w00t)
Shouldn't disable-tests.patch be removed, then?
Also, README.source still mentions minitest.
lintian warning that should be fixed:
W: ruby-hoe source: debian-watch-file-should-mangle-version line 2
> > > > The description should probably not link to the PDF, not point to the
> > > > doc.
> > >
> > > Is that because we don't like the pdf, or because this is considered
> > > bad form to put urls in the description? Its a very useful document,
> > > even if we can't rebuild it ourselves, and it meets the spirit of the
> > > guideline that the long description should help users decide whether or
> > > not to install the package.
> >
> > This is because:
> > 1) the description is not the correct place to link to documentation
> > 2) that documentation is non-free until the contrary is proven
> >
>
> Alright, removed the link.
>
> > > > ruby-rubyforge
> > > > ==============
> > > > (Looks like you are using an old gem2deb version, according to the
> > > > BUild-Depends line)
> > >
> > > Oops, done.
> > >
> > > > The description needs to be edited to fit the Debian description
> > > > guidelines. You can't just reuse the gem description.
> > >
> > > Reformatted per http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html
> >
> > Well, still not good enough, I think. I would write something such as:
> >
> > Description: automation of some Rubyforge operations
> > This Ruby script and library implements a command line interface to
> > a subset of operations that one can perform on Rubyforge (a forge
> > dedicated to projects related to the Ruby programming language).
> > The library can be used to implement Rubyforge-related actions in
> > Rakefiles.
> >
>
> Since you wrote the above (which is definitely more concise than what I
> put together), I feel you should commit it. I have no objection to that
> at all.
I uploaded ruby-rubyforge and ruby-echoe. Thanks!
Lucas
Reply to: