Dear Miguel, On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 09:02:43PM -0300, Miguel Landaeta wrote: > Hi folks, > Before uploading this NEW package I would appreciate if somebody more > experienced with Ruby packaging than myself can take a brief look[1] at > ruby-coveralls package. > I think it's mostly OK, lintian clean, etc. > However, I'm not quite sure If I got right the testing part. In > particular this package's testing machinery depends on vcr and webmock > so I have to disable that. Before looking at the package, I would like to know if you are really interested in having ruby-coveralls packaged in Debian, or if you found it has a (build-)dependency for another project. I am asking because I encounter several gems requiring coveralls in tests. My opinion on tests has been that it is a great benefit to be able to run test suites at build time, but getting test coverage statistics is not of much interest for us (that is more a tool for upstream developpers). That is why I have been patching out uses of simplecov/coveralls in test suites. Moreover, according to coveralls for docs: https://coveralls.io/ the prerequisites for coveralls on Ruby gems are: - the code should be hosted on Github; - the code should build on Travis or a similar platform; [I've never used coveralls myself though] Hence I do not see at the moment any use case for a ruby-coveralls package. But maybe I missed something. If it is the case, then please correct me. Cheers, Cédric
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature