On 24/11/05 at 10:45 +0100, Paul van Tilburg wrote: > Hey, > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:31:39PM +0000, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 05:43:21PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > [...] > > > After thinking about it for a while, I came to the conclusion that we > > > have to consider the user's point of view. There are two kinds of > > > library users : > > > - those only using software that relies on this library. Those don't > > > care about rdoc documentation, etc. > > > - those developing software using this library. Those want as much help > > > as possible. > > > > Agreed. In fact, I consider this pretty important. > > Indeed. > > > > 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. > > Agreed. > > > 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)? > > I think this is better too. The dummy -ruby package is meant for the > developer and so is the -ruby-doc package. Besides that, the > documentation isn't Ruby version dependent (in AFAIK all cases).
As said in my other mail, examples are ruby-version-dependant 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... > > Yes, the unit tests need to be ran while packaging. If unit tests are > available for a library then this is great for the "package testing > before upload". I don't think a user/developer is going to rerun the > tests to find the same results as the maintainer has. This requires manual copying of the test scripts to the debian/tests dir by the maintainer. This is error-prone, etc. The Ubuntu proposal is flexible enough to allow to store tests in a -dev package. Also, another reason for not storing tests in the source package is that the Ubuntu proposal is not implemented yet. I think test scripts often can be useful as documentation, especially when example scripts are not provided. Also, I personally would like to be able to run the tests on all ruby packages on a regular basis. The fact that the package works at build time doesn't mean that it will continue to work. For example, when rake 0.6.0-1 was uploaded, it was working just fine. But when ruby 1.8.3 was uploaded, a change in fileutils broke rake (see bug #336937). If rake came with a test suite, and if somebody had been running it regularly, this would have been easily picked up. -- | 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]
