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

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



Hi!

On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 01:05:40PM +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> 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.

Thank you Paul, as well as Antonio, for your review.

> 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.

I've imported the text to the wiki, as it might be easier to work with:

  http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Drafts/StateOfTransitionNewPolicy

I tried to address the issue you raised by rewriting the paragraph
between link 0: and 1:. (I left a mention the first bit about the
statistics because it illustrates the discussion somehow). I also added
a few words about gem2deb at the end of the introduction, just to say it
exists, and it is a nice tool, not to discourage people before the end.

I suggest that if there is no other comment or modification proposed, we
(I?) send it to debian-devel in a week (Friday April, 20th, 22:00 UTC),
because time runs fast, and there is a lot of work to do. What to you
think?

Best regards,

	Cédric


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: