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

Re: Transition of Ruby packages to the new Ruby policy

Dear Francesco,

Thank you for your message. Please find below confirmations about
(almost) all your statements.

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 07:44:33PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:

> Could someone please confirm the following?

>  (A) Since apt-listbugs is an application (and not a library) and a
> Debian native package, I should only need to care about the naming
> conventions of the (build-)*dependencies* (and *suggestions*) of
> apt-listbugs and about running the test suite during package build


>  (B) Since apt-listbugs already has a (small) test suite and it already
> runs it during package build, I should be OK with this requirement


>  (C) The remaining old-style-named (build-)dependencies for
> apt-listbugs are:

>      0) libdpkg-ruby1.8
>      1) libgettext-ruby1.8
>      2) libzlib-ruby1.8

> Of these three old-style-named packages, the first one
> (libdpkg-ruby1.8) has already been renamed, and I updated the
> (build-)dependencies accordingly in
> http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=apt-listbugs/apt-listbugs.git;a=commitdiff;h=929da11f9476c36113847fc1081150f176a1876e
> This change is pending: it will show up in the next apt-listbugs upload.


> The second package (libgettext-ruby1.8) has not yet been renamed, as
> far as I can see. Let me check: yes, it seems that the source package
> (libgettext-ruby) is in the list of packages not yet using the new Ruby
> Policy...
> I will update the (build-)dependencies, once the renamed package has
> migrated into testing. In case I turn out to be too slow in noticing and
> reacting, a bug report against apt-listbugs will be welcome!

Thanks. We'll report a bug if needed after the transition of

> The third package (libzlib-ruby1.8) is actually a virtual package
> provided by libruby1.8: it seems to me that there's no ruby-zlib
> virtual package (should there be one?). Taking into account that
> apt-listbugs currently only works with ruby1.8 (and that
> it has #!/usr/bin/ruby1.8 as its she-bang), I am under the impression
> that nothing should be done (yet) for this dependency.

You can keep it as is for the moment. I don't know what will happen with
libzlib-ruby1.8 virtual package. Maybe other members of the team do. If
something changes about it, we will notice you through the BTS.

Best wishes,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: