Re: gitlab status?
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Martí <mvdan@mvdan.cc> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 17:58:09 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>>Have you looked at diffs? Maybe we could just patch the Debian packages...
>
> I did. Even if the patches could be applied to our packages, I don't
> think that'd be a good idea. I believe that the two best solutions we
> have are either their upstreams merging the "improvements" (as gitlab's
> dev put it), or gitlab adapting itself to using the original libs. But
> patching ours would be a quick and probably dirty way of solving it.
I have checked all the diffs and the patches are small and reasonable
with exception of gitlab-grack[*], which is basically different
library. To tell the truth, I don't really see a reason for keeping
gitlab's forks and not merging the fixes into upstream's versions.
I took the liberty of packaging all "custom" gitlab libraries with
gitlab patches on top of it. Everybody is welcome to take a peek, fix
a tests, etc...
Would it be possible to regenerate the dependency graph?
* - I have packaged the gitlab's version as ruby-grack, because it
does have "Grack" class inside. If there's ever need to package
schacon's grack I propose it's named ruby-grack-githttp to match the
class.
Ondrej
--
Ondřej Surý <ondrej@sury.org>
Reply to: