Hiya, On 13/01/20 12:00 am, David Suárez wrote: > From my point of view packaging all the v3 gems could not be lot's of > work, if we use the multi binary layout that gem2deb provides. The question is, is that worth the effort? What would we want that for? Is there any need per se? > Renaming the packages to v2 is not the way to go, and will produces lots > of duplicates, making endusers and ruby developers that want to consume > this lib, very dizzy. To be very honest, I don't think Ruby developers use Debian packages. `gem install` remains (mostly) everyone's favorite. We only package those which are needed by Ruby/Rails App (for instance, GitLab, Diaspora, Loomio, OBS, et al) and other things. Sometimes also because we have RFP(s) :) Similarly for Node, Perl, Golang, and other libraries. I don't think a person would want to `apt install ruby-aws-sdk` instead of `gem install` it. It might also explain its low popcon score of 17. Even personally, whenever I write Ruby (though that's lesser than most here do), I'd very much prefer playing with `gem/bundle install` instead of installing it via apt. That said, I do not want to (and shall not) discourage you from packaging those ~200 libs and making it perfect. But I'd much appreciate that energy being spent to get all the Rails App(s) (GitLab, Loomio, Diaspora, OBS, et al) in good shape and health :) Best, Utkarsh
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature