On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:47:12PM +0100, David Suárez wrote:
> El vie., 13 mar. 2020 18:30, Pirate Praveen <praveen@onenetbeyond.org>
> escribió:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier
> > <boutil@debian.org> wrote:
> > > Dear David,
> > >
> > > I am re-reading your mail
> > >
> > https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w@mail.gmail.com
> > > about the status of the various versions of ruby-aws-sdk.
> > >
> > > As I understand the situation now:
> > > - the source/binary package ruby-aws-sdk-core v3, which was blocking
> > > the
> > > upgrade path from v1 with a source package src:ruby-aws-sdk
> > > providing several binaries,
> > > was removed from unstable
> > > - you propose with your mail to update and upload the v2
> > > src:ruby-aws-sdk package to unstable (an earlier broken(?) version
> > > is
> > > in experimental)
> > > - we don't discuss yet the upgrade to v3, but it will be needed at
> > > some
> > > point because some rails apps need them (loomio).
> > >
> > > If other parties involved in packages using ruby-aws-sdk are ok, I
> > > would
> > > be happy to help you get this v2 to unstable.
> > >
> > > It would be faster to jump directly to v3, but there are some issues:
> > > - the multibinary layout can help you create a source package from the
> > > github repo
> > > - but it would result in a huuuuge quantity of binary packages. It is
> > > a
> > > lot of work for FTP masters to review them (once) and additional
> > > load
> > > on the archive to add so many packages
> > >
> > > We discussed this issue a little bit during the sprint, and I kind of
> > > remember that the proposition we had was to have this multibinary
> > > source
> > > with only the needed services provided as binary packages. Was it the
> > > statement we reached? Dear participants of the sprint, don't hesitate
> > > to
> > > say I am wrong...
> > >
> >
> > I think we abandoned the idea of a single source since each component
> > had independent versions. So we got to go with separate source packages
> > for the services we need.
> >
>
> We go worst then... managing n(gems), n(versions for each gem)... seeing
> thats is clear than each release would be aligned with the upstream git
> version....
>
> Like i said to boutil, is better to go with the upstream release version
> instead of maintaining n versions for each gem...
>
> Is not more simple to package ruby-s3 as ruby-s3-v3? If it makes happy
> loomio packagers...
>
> I think this is a pigheaded decision... Is have no sense removing
> functionality for packaging another app.
Please take your tone down. Everyone here is trying to figure out the
best way forward. This type of behavior will not help to make your case.
He had 10+ people looking into this issue during the Ruby sprint a few
weeks ago, and the consensus we reached was that for aws-sdk v3, it is
better to split the packages.
Upstream decided to do this split, and in the long run it's worse for us
to try to do otherwise. They explicitly mention that going into v3, you
need to dependend specifically on the parts you need:
https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-ruby#upgrading-guide
We now have v1 which is probably not good enough anymore; and maybe we
could have v2 now using the same scheme. But we won't be able to stay on
v2 forever, because other stuff will start to depend on v3, and
eventually we will have to deal with it.