On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 09:48:47AM +0100, Per Andersson wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Cédric Boutillier > <cedric.boutillier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks Antonio for this cleaned Gemfile. > > I extracted from it the names of the gems, and generated a new graph > > > > http://people.debian.org/~boutil/gitlab/gitlab_deps20130123.pdf > > Neat, great work! > > The gem rubyntlm is a false positive, it is already packaged as ruby-ntlm. > > > > which looks (a bit) less intimidating than the previous one. > > Indeed. :-) > > What are typical developer gems that are not a requirement for running > tests? > > So far Antonio has flagged pry and guard. Any other common gems that > can Another common one is spork, plus the ones I flagged at gitlab's Gemfile (note however that I might be wrong for some of them). Usually you should double check everything listed inside :development and :test groups, and ask yourself whether that makes sense while running the tests in a package build. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature