Re: RFS: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer
Hi,
On 20-02-10 22:01:35, Gabriel Filion wrote:
> I've pushed a bit more in my packaging work (and comprehension, thanks
> all for the help on the IRC channel!) and I now have two more packages
> that are ready: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer.
>
> Can someone please review my work in the salsa repos of the same
> names?
Both uploaded to NEW, all in all pretty good! Some quick comments:
- I did run wrap-and-sort -abt on both. (Could we please make this team
policy, and let gem2deb run it by default?)
- I improved the description of ruby-wisper slightly.
- Regarding patches in general: please use a .patch extension. Also, not
that important if there is only one, but helps in case one needs to
handle more patches: adding a number in front, something like
0001-name-of-your.patch.
> I've had to add a build-dep to ruby-wisper since the spec_helper.rb
> file unconditionally "require"s the coveralls library but it's not
> marked as a development requirement in the gemspec.
>
> I've reported this upstream:
> https://github.com/krisleech/wisper/issues/182
Great!
> Also, the necromancer library doesn't ship its .rspec file in the
> published gem as a choice they made to avoid clutter in the releases.
>
> For now I've added a patch in debian/patches/ that re-adds the file
> back in so that tests pass. However, upstream recommended that I build
> with code from github.
> I'm not sure if I should keep that patch in the debian package, or if
> I should change how upstream releases are downloaded, instead, so that
> I get the .rspec file with the rest of the upstream files.
That's an easy patch, but in general, I would recommend to try to reduce
the number of required patches to a minimum, ideally, to zero. I agree
with upstream that in this case, pulling the tarball from GitHub makes
sense, see ruby-gpgme for an example which does this.
Thanks again for your work!
Cheers,
Georg
Reply to: