Hi, On 03/06/11 at 12:13 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Lucas Nussbaum's message of Tue May 24 23:59:26 -0700 2011: > > On 20/05/11 at 09:32 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > Excerpts from Lucas Nussbaum's message of Thu May 19 23:04:57 -0700 2011: > > > > On 19/05/11 at 14:56 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > > Hello everyone. > > > > > > > > > > At Lucas's suggestion, I've pushed a fixed ruby-hoe with the > > > > > offending PDF file removed, so > > > > > it should be uploaded for NEW processing. > > > > > > > > > > I've also pushed a new package into the git repository, > > > > > ruby-rubyforge. I tagged it as released > > > > > already, sorry for that. If someone can upload that as well, I'd be > > > > > eternally grateful. > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Hi Lucas, thanks for the thorough review. I'm a bit embarrassed how many > > > things you found to fix. See below. > > > > > > > > > > > Usually, I do not bother with filing ITPs > > > > > > I won't anymore.. since I can look in the git repository to see if there > > > is already work being done. > > > > > > I've made some fixes but alioth is down right now so can't push them up. > > > So all of the things marked "Done" will be pushed when alioth returns. > > > > > > > > > > > ruby-hoe > > > > ======== > > > > There are commented out lines in debian/control > > > > > > I left this there because minitest will be added here as soon as it is > > > bootstrapped by having ruby-hoe available. Should we move these to > > > README.source, to be removed when the tests are re-enabled? > > > > I'm not sure of what you mean: ruby-minitest is available in Debian. > > > > Alright, done, tests run and pass on ruby 1.8 and 1.9.1 now (w00t)
Shouldn't disable-tests.patch be removed, then? Also, README.source still mentions minitest. lintian warning that should be fixed: W: ruby-hoe source: debian-watch-file-should-mangle-version line 2 > > > > The description should probably not link to the PDF, not point to the > > > > doc. > > > > > > Is that because we don't like the pdf, or because this is considered > > > bad form to put urls in the description? Its a very useful document, > > > even if we can't rebuild it ourselves, and it meets the spirit of the > > > guideline that the long description should help users decide whether or > > > not to install the package. > > > > This is because: > > 1) the description is not the correct place to link to documentation > > 2) that documentation is non-free until the contrary is proven > > > > Alright, removed the link. > > > > > ruby-rubyforge > > > > ============== > > > > (Looks like you are using an old gem2deb version, according to the > > > > BUild-Depends line) > > > > > > Oops, done. > > > > > > > The description needs to be edited to fit the Debian description > > > > guidelines. You can't just reuse the gem description. > > > > > > Reformatted per > > > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html > > > > Well, still not good enough, I think. I would write something such as: > > > > Description: automation of some Rubyforge operations > > This Ruby script and library implements a command line interface to > > a subset of operations that one can perform on Rubyforge (a forge > > dedicated to projects related to the Ruby programming language). > > The library can be used to implement Rubyforge-related actions in > > Rakefiles. > > > > Since you wrote the above (which is definitely more concise than what I > put together), I feel you should commit it. I have no objection to that > at all. I uploaded ruby-rubyforge and ruby-echoe. Thanks! Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
