Re: RFS: ruby-execjs, ruby-mail, ruby-session
On 27/07/14 12:44 AM, Cédric Boutillier wrote:
Hi Caitlin,
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:35:37PM -0400, Caitlin Matos wrote:
I have pushed changes for these 3 packages to git. They all build cleanly in
a chroot. Please have a look and let me know if they're OK!
Here are some remarks about ruby-session:
- As for ruby-mail, I deleted the debian/3.2.0-1 tag on the remote
repository
Thanks. I'd already pushed this before I got your message about not
tagging them.
- In debian/changelog: if several persons committed some changes for a
Debian release, we usually split the entries in paragraphs according
to who did the change (see for example the 2.5.4-1 entry in
ruby-mail's changelog).
Done.
- In debian/control, it is better to use https for the homepage field
Done.
- In debian/copyright, the tab in the debian/* Files paragraph should be
expanded to spaces. The LICENSE file points to the Ruby's license,
which is now BSD-2-clause (instead of GPL-2) or Ruby's special
conditions since Ruby 1.9. Can you contact the upstream author and see
if he can clarify the license?
Hm, I actually went back and fixed this after your comment yesterday, so
this has already been fixed...
As for the licence, I have just contacted upstream.
I will push all of these changes once I have clarified the licence.
Here are some about ruby-execjs:
- the remark above about the debian/* tags applies here.
- I see that you imported an upstream file from the Github repository to
create the debian/ruby-tests. It might be better to use as the
upstream tarball the one from Github, instead of the one generated
from the gem, and patch if needed the tests.
Ah, didn't think of that. I was mimicking what the previous packager had
done.
Just to clarify, though, should I reset (or maybe just revert) the
history and import the github version? I'm asking because I thought that
was generally frowned upon once the changes have been pushed...
The ruby-coffee-script-source package contains a copy of the
coffee-script.js script. Instead of including the test_coffeescript in
a begin/rescue/end block, maybe build-depend on that package and use
the copy it contains.
I had thought about just adding the build dependency, but I wasn't sure
if that was the right approach, since it's not "mandatory". Now that I'm
thinking about it again, that seems like a silly rationale. I'll change it.
Cheers,
Cédric
Thanks again
Caitlin
Reply to: