On 17/01/11 at 00:05 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-17 at 08:43 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 16/01/11 at 21:22 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > > 3) Should we change our packaging workflow? Using gem2deb, it would be
> > > > quite
> > > > easy to use git-buildpackage with:
> > > > - an upstream branch
> > > > - a gem2deb branch, providing the source package as generated by gem2deb
> > > > - a debian branch, with the source package based on the gem2deb branch
> > > > I believe that in most cases, we will only need marginal modifications
> > > > from the gem2deb generated package, so this would be a good way to have
> > > > an efficient workflow.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'd suggest that gem2deb be used initially, but that there be an effort
> > > to do *as much as possible* in dh, so that one can simply bump upstream
> > > revisions in the changelog of the packaging branch to accomodate new
> > > upstreams, and bump the dh_ruby (or whatever its called) dependency
> > > version if there is some new functionality necessary.
> >
> > Sure. However, there's quite a lot of guessing going on in dh-make-ruby
> > to create debian/ruby-foo.{examples,docs,install}.
>
> If this is done in the dh_ code then those files can just be used as
> additional stuff that the guessing missed.
I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain?
- Lucas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110117082812.ga28...@xanadu.blop.info
