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.
Cheers,