On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Daniel Martí <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 17:58:09 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >>Have you looked at diffs? Maybe we could just patch the Debian packages... > > I did. Even if the patches could be applied to our packages, I don't > think that'd be a good idea. I believe that the two best solutions we > have are either their upstreams merging the "improvements" (as gitlab's > dev put it), or gitlab adapting itself to using the original libs. But > patching ours would be a quick and probably dirty way of solving it.
I have checked all the diffs and the patches are small and reasonable with exception of gitlab-grack[*], which is basically different library. To tell the truth, I don't really see a reason for keeping gitlab's forks and not merging the fixes into upstream's versions. I took the liberty of packaging all "custom" gitlab libraries with gitlab patches on top of it. Everybody is welcome to take a peek, fix a tests, etc... Would it be possible to regenerate the dependency graph? * - I have packaged the gitlab's version as ruby-grack, because it does have "Grack" class inside. If there's ever need to package schacon's grack I propose it's named ruby-grack-githttp to match the class. Ondrej -- Ondřej Surý <[email protected]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALjhHG_k+=CRqKArRr4Y-w3YECozjS9GznR=mlqc4_i_kci...@mail.gmail.com
