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

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: