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

Re: transition to new policy of other packages / transitional packages



Hey all,

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:50:21AM +0200, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
> I wrote a first draft available on gobby.debian.org, under
> Teams/RubyExtras/transition_to_new_policy.txt. Before more polishing,
> could you please read/review/criticise/edit/improve (constructively :D)?

I have made some changes:
- Made text flow consistent (fixed vs flowed, couldn't help myself).
- Add a note in the naming conventions section that applications are
  supposed to be called just "foo".
- Add a link to our packaging guidelines; made the link to the gem2deb
  transition instructions more specific as the wiki page is rather large.
  
Another note (for which I made no changes yet):
You mention that we want to have maintainers outside the PRE team to
also transition their package to improve statistics.  This suggests that
this is our main aim.  I think the most important thing is to have a
higher quality of Ruby packages and also a more consistent experience of
installing and using them.  That is why this transiions _needs_ to be
finished before Wheezy freezes.  We will present a mess to the user and
a hassle to maintain to ourselves if we don't.
So, I suggest a stronger formulation and leave the part about the
statistics out...  they are just there to show us the progress.

> On the same topic, what is the status of the Ruby policy draft in the
> ruby-policy directory? It would be great to have a version available
> somewhere as a reference for maintainers of Ruby packages.

I actually have no idea about the policy.  I think it's a bit dead
again.  I mainly use the Packaging wiki-page which could be seen as a,
albeit informal, Debian Ruby policy.

Thanks for addressing this issue of transition stall,
Cheers,

Paul

-- 
Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux  | E-mail: paulvt@debian.org
Jabber/GTalk: paul@luon.net          | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: