Hi Hleb,
Thanks a lot for the review, I've created a repo now [1].
On 18-02-19 10:53:00, Hleb Valoshka wrote:
> On 2/19/18, Georg Faerber <georg@riseup.net> wrote:
> > I've worked on this now, and would be more than happy, if someone could
> > review my work [1]. Note: That's not yet ready for upload, before, I
>
> d/changelog:
> Please remove this line as this is not an initial release:
> * Initial release.
Done.
Actually, I've posted a comment in salsa.d.o referencing the code and
explaining that I was unsure what to put there, but somehow the comment
was lost, it seems.
> d/files, d/ruby-factory-bot.subsvars:
> Please remove these files as they are automatically generated during a build.
Done.
> d/gemspec:
> Why did you create it?
Upstream ships two gemspec files: factory_bot and factory_girl.
Exporting DH_RUBY_GEMSPEC=factory_bot.gemspec via d/rules worked for the
build, but failed for autopkgtest; the symlink works for both cases.
> d/control:
> For binary ruby-factory-bot:
> 1) Replace 4.7.0-1~ with ${source:Version}
Done.
> 2) Add Provides: ruby-factory-girl
I'm just doing this for the first time, so quite possible I'm wrong on
this, but reading [2], case #5, "Provides" is marked optional, that is,
to be used if "there are some packages which depend on A". While this is
clearly the case here, ruby-factory-bot isn't a "drop-in" package for
ruby-factory-girl. The reverse dependencies have to be changed as well,
as code within ruby-factory-bot changed. Therefore, I think that
Provides: isn't correct, as apt would pull in this automatically,
wouldn't it?
Thanks again,
Georg
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-factory-bot/
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition#Package_Transition
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature