On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 07:41:16PM -0200, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > Cédric Boutillier escreveu isso aí: > > Thanks Antonio. I forgot to check for conflicts :( > > I am now making ruby-blankslate conflict with ruby-builder, and I > > propose the alternative ruby-blankslate | ruby-builder for > > (build-)dependencies of ruby-instantiator and ruby-introspection. > Thant won't work. activesupport (and therefore rails, activeldap, > activerecord ...) depends on builder; if you make blankslate conflict > with builder you can't have blankslate installed together with rails, > which kind of sucks ... > The correct solution is to make ruby-builder drop it's embedded copy of > blankslate and depend on it instead. Ideally all the other embedded > copies should also be dropped in favor of the standalone package. Argh! I was a bit too naive... I reverted my yesterday commits. Only hpricot and builder use embedded copy. blankslate.rb has disappeared from the newer version of ruby-facets (the previous one had just a warning message). Ramaze has a simpler version, but could use the real one. Just a short question, while I am at it: blankslate.rb is extracted from Builder, released under the MIT(Expat) license. The blankslate project does not mention any license explicitely, expect the header of blankslate.rb: All right reserved. . Permission is granted for use, copying, modification, distribution, and distribution of modified versions of this work as long as the above copyright notice is included. Should I consider the license as being this paragraph, or as being MIT? Cédric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature