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

Re: Feedback on debian-ruby package

Hi Cédric,

On 14 December 2011 23:33, Cédric Boutillier
<cedric.boutillier@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a few remarks/questions that may lead to improvements of your package

Thank you for your feedback. Apparently I should have been more clear
about the current status of my package: I simply pushed the contents
of my PPA's repository to git.debian.org without changing anything
because I was interested to hear whether there were any major flaws
that I should fix.

That being said, of course the points you raise are perfectly valid
and I intend to address the problems that you list in your mail.

I still have some questions regarding proper packaging:

> - Your debian/gbp.conf mentions that the debian branch is named 'debian',
>  but it seems to me that it is the 'master' branch. In fact, I see that
>  in your github repository, 'master' is the upstream branch and 'debian
>  the debian branch. You should probably not ship, or else change your
>  gbp.conf.

Is it ok if I use the same "master/debian" naming convention that I
use on GitHub for my repos on git.debian.org (provided I set the
default branch to "debian")?

Also, how should I handle the package versions already listed in the
changelog because of my PPA? Is it ok to just recreate the changelog
for Debian from scratch?

> - Should not be rbenv set as a Depends: instead of Recommends:? The
>  script rbenv-install will not work without rbenv.

I'm not so sure about this one. You are of course right that
rbenv-install is only going to work with rbenv installed, but
rbenv-install is just a simple wrapper for ruby-build that is provided
in order to be able to "rbenv install $yourfavouriteruby".

The Debian Policy Manual claims that “The Depends field should be used
if the depended-on package is required for the depending package to
provide a significant amount of functionality.”

I am not totally convinced that this is the case here, but maybe I'm
just being pedantic or misunderstood the policy manual.


Reply to: