Bug#946945: Why package this gem instead of using its successors?

To: 946945@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Bug#946945: Why package this gem instead of using its successors?
From: Matijs van Zuijlen <matijs@matijs.net>
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2019 10:23:57 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] 2db57f95-d1c4-1cfb-1c10-20f1c2f0accb@matijs.net>
Reply-to: Matijs van Zuijlen <matijs@matijs.net>, 946945@bugs.debian.org
References: <[🔎] CAPP0f96fm=j0A6zhmBN6N3qPX3HC3k8ar2_tDSNBPQkY0z5Bgw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Utkarsh,

This gem is very old (2009) and unmaintained upstream and it looks like
its functionality is included in the newer gems unidecoder (2013) and
stringex (2018). Stringex is actually already in Debian.

Can you explain to me why this gem is being packaged? Is there some gem
that needs it? It is not clear from the wnpp bug description.

-- 
Kind regards,
Matijs van Zuijlen

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Bug#946945: Why package this gem instead of using its successors?
  - From: Utkarsh Gupta <guptautkarsh2102@gmail.com>

References:
- Bug#946945: ITP: ruby-unidecode -- Transliteratively convert UTF-8 text to US-ASCII
  - From: Utkarsh Gupta <guptautkarsh2102@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Processed: limit package to wnpp, tagging 947341
Next by Date: Bug#946945: Why package this gem instead of using its successors?
Previous by thread: Bug#946945: ITP: ruby-unidecode -- Transliteratively convert UTF-8 text to US-ASCII
Next by thread: Bug#946945: Why package this gem instead of using its successors?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread