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

Re: Feedback on debian-ruby package

Sebastian Boehm escreveu isso aí:
> 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")?

The team has over 200 packages, so we need to keep a standard convention
to keep everyone sane. Our convention is `upstream` for upstream code
and `master` for debian packaging.

> 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?

I like keeping the existing entries if you like to acknowledge your
previous work in the package. But from a technical point of view, it
makes no difference for Debian: for the first upload, only the latest
entry matters.

> > - 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.

In practive, packages in Recommends: will be installed automatically by
default. People who disable this know what they are doing, so to me
Recommends: is fine.


I had reviewed the package before, but ended up not being able to send
them to you before. These are the notes I took, but some of them overlap
with Cedric's comments.

debian/.gitigore: not needed

debian/control: explain the use case. most of the common Ruby
interpreters are available as official Debian packages.

debian/copyright: the `license: Expat` stanza with the license text
should a standalone and the stanzas for * and debian/* should point at

debian/gbp.conf: not needed, follow the team conventions

debian/lintian-overrides: can we create some simple manpages?

debian/README.Debian: adjust to match the intended use case

debian/rules: don't see the point for all the git stuff there. We should
be using official tarballs, and even if we package git snapshots, we
should first create tarballs from them. (that's the team policy)

Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: