On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 01:20:04PM +0300, David Moreno Garza wrote: > On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 22:03 +0300, Dmitri Borodaenko wrote: > > - can we help with or take over upstream of Ruby/DBI (I maintain the > > package, but I'm too dumb and busy to do that myself)? > > I'd like to talk a bit with you about this, are you available today? It > seems that I'll be in Smökki the whole day (until 20 hrs), please come > and we can discuss, you can reach me on IRC, #debconf, under the nick > 'damog'. > > > - should we/when will we phase out ruby1.6?
Good point. I don't know if there are still libraries that only work (well) on 1.6? I don't use any of them anymore. > > - scripting libraries and FHS: /usr/lib or /usr/share? I for one think this is a good idea. However, as I have noticed during patching setup.rb, rbconfig is a bit inconsistent with itself, so while doing this possible transition, I think we can help out here as well with some work towards upstream. > > - packaging of rubygems I have been mailing with Daigo Moriwaki about his Rubygems package. The package itself is finished (in the normal sense of the word, it's a nice valid, working package). However, there still are the concerns regarding the introduced source incompatibility[1], the fact that gem installed libs can override system installed libs and that one gets to 'packaging' management systems. > > - packaging of rails The package is large, but it works.. some stuff could be split off so that it can be reused. Also, there is the packaging of Rails apps themselves that have to be kept in mind. For example Instiki, which uses railties, actionpack, etc. > Thanks: There are tons of topics to discuss. Indeed, I still have some: - documentation The Policy still has got 'to be written' notes on parts talking about documentation. Some discussion about whether to add stuff about RDoc documentation and RI documentation would be good to have: Which dirs should the generated docs go to? Should RDoc documentation be generated for all libs in Debian? I was trying to working on a rubydoc (meta-)documentation tool ala perldoc, but got stranded because the docs are virtually located everywhere and not as accessible as it would seem. If distributions resolve these issues, a rubydoc tool could be possible. - versioning There seem to be a dozen ways a Ruby library is made available for different Ruby versions in Debian. Some packages have a -ruby1.8 and -ruby1.6 suffixed version and some do not, some have a versionless dummy package (suffix -ruby) that depends on the current Ruby version, some have a virtual package that arranges this, and sometimes there is nothing at all. Where IMO the policy is clear on the matter of module package names, it is not on this "dummy package" matter, I think it should me straightened out. - compliance with/use of Package Christian Neukirchen has proposed (and is AFAIK already working on) a Python distutils-alike system for installing Ruby libraries, apps and extensions in unified way, called Package[2]. With our support and this making it into the Ruby core, it could help us a lot. Instead of having to adapt packages to install it with all kind of special cases, all could be done with the same debian/rules or CDBS class (that I am currently working on, but suspended it until the whole setup/install stuff is resolved). Christian hasn't got much response from our side yet, but he (and I) is/are really interested. On a side note, there was some discussion on #debian-ruby lately about the strange behaviour of setup.rb under Debian. Since the default prefix is /usr, but libs are installed to <prefix>/local/lib/site_ruby/1.8, the lay user, completely unware of this, will install custom scripts into /usr/bin! Or, if he changes the prefix to /usr/local, the libs into /usr/local/local/lib/.... I have proposed a different option layout of setup.rb[3] to Aoki, but he hasn't responded yet. I have talked with Christian and he told me Package will also have such a dual-mode layout. - Debian Ruby Maintainers team / libruby-extras This team is being forged during the past few weeks/months with its first main goal to bundle a few useful small libraries that also should be recommended to be installed under a libruby-extras dummy package. There is an Alioth project for this (pkg-ruby-extras) and all interested are invited to join us (contact me or David Nusinow/gravity). When this package is created, we probably can add more Ruby app/lib packages to be supported by this team... thoughts? I am also interested in results of discussions around the above noted points of interest. I hope that you guys can advertise the IRC channel and this list a bit, the more interested people, the better. I'll be in the IRC channel from 16:00 - 19:00 (+0300/EEST) if you need me. Have a good BOF :) Paul 1: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2005/02/msg00009.html 2: http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2005/06/msg00001.html 3: http://rpa-base.rubyforge.org/wiki/wiki.cgi?SetupRbSwitches 4: http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-ruby-extras/ NB. I was quite tired writing this mail, forgive me for my typo's, strange grammer and word swaps. -- Student @ Eindhoven | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Technology, The Netherlands | JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
