On 23/11/05 at 23:31 +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote: > > Therefore, I think ruby libraries should be packaged using two binary > > packages : > > - libxxxxx-ruby1.8: contains only /usr/lib/ruby/1.8/xxxx/* and the > > copyright/changelog stuff. > > - libxxxxx-ruby1.8-dev: contains examples, unit tests, rdoc > > documentation, ri documentation. > > It's OK with me as long as all the stuff we decide to include in the -dev > package is really much bigger than the library itself. > > Just one comment: wouldn't it be better having all the dev files > documentation in a version independent package, like libxxxxx-ruby-dev > (instead of libxxxxx-ruby1.8-dev)?
Unit tests and example scripts might be version dependant (actually, they are, if they include a shebang). > > About unit tests: it would be great to have a common architecture to > > deal with our unit tests. This way, one could run a script on a regular > > basis to check that all his installed packages still work correctly. > > I'm not sure I like this. I would prefer using the Ubuntu proposal (or > something similar) for package testing, and somehow plug the own library unit > tests into the distribution package framework. After all, the package > maintainer is basically who needs/is interested in package testing... The Ubuntu proposal is still not clear, but I think we could do both. If we provide the unit tests in /usr/share/doc/libxmpp4r-ruby1.8-dev/test, we can could still have a test file in debian/tests/ that run our tests. Most ruby libraries already come with a test suite. I think it's easier to just package them than to copy them to debian/tests/somewhere. Also, tests are often good substitutes for examples when examples are lacking. > > About ri documentation: is there a debian package already generating > > some of it, except the ri1.8 package itself ? > > What do you mean? Each package should generate its own documentation, > right? Well, do you have an example of a package which does it ? I couldn't find any. > > About rdoc documentation: it tends to be *big*. Here are some number > > while generating XMPP4R's documentation : > > [...] > > Wow. It's big indeed, and RI is more or less the same size, so it seems > that if we include either RI or rdoc documentation (which seems like a good > idea), the result is going to be _way_ bigger than the library. I personally have never really liked ri. I use rdoc's html pages most of the time. I don't think we should choose between RI and RDOC for our users. I think that one should have a deep look at diagrams generation in rdoc. If we can fix it, then rdoc documentation will become much smaller and won't be a problem. Also, the -dev package is for developers. And developers want the doc if it is useful. So I think we should definitely generate them. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
