Hi Hleb, all,
On 18-02-19 20:07:44, Georg Faerber wrote:
> Thanks a lot for the review, I've created a repo now [1].
>
> On 18-02-19 10:53:00, Hleb Valoshka wrote:
> > On 2/19/18, Georg Faerber <ge...@riseup.net> wrote:
> > > I've worked on this now, and would be more than happy, if someone could
> > > review my work [1]. Note: That's not yet ready for upload, before, I
> >
> > d/changelog:
> > Please remove this line as this is not an initial release:
> > * Initial release.
>
> Done.
>
> Actually, I've posted a comment in salsa.d.o referencing the code and
> explaining that I was unsure what to put there, but somehow the comment
> was lost, it seems.
>
> > d/files, d/ruby-factory-bot.subsvars:
> > Please remove these files as they are automatically generated during a
> > build.
>
> Done.
>
> > d/gemspec:
> > Why did you create it?
>
> Upstream ships two gemspec files: factory_bot and factory_girl.
> Exporting DH_RUBY_GEMSPEC=factory_bot.gemspec via d/rules worked for the
> build, but failed for autopkgtest; the symlink works for both cases.
>
> > d/control:
> > For binary ruby-factory-bot:
> > 1) Replace 4.7.0-1~ with ${source:Version}
>
> Done.
>
> > 2) Add Provides: ruby-factory-girl
>
> I'm just doing this for the first time, so quite possible I'm wrong on
> this, but reading [2], case #5, "Provides" is marked optional, that is,
> to be used if "there are some packages which depend on A". While this is
> clearly the case here, ruby-factory-bot isn't a "drop-in" package for
> ruby-factory-girl. The reverse dependencies have to be changed as well,
> as code within ruby-factory-bot changed. Therefore, I think that
> Provides: isn't correct, as apt would pull in this automatically,
> wouldn't it?
>
> [1] https://salsa.debian.org/ruby-team/ruby-factory-bot/
> [2] https://wiki.debian.org/PackageTransition#Package_TransitionCould you / someone else continue with the review, or, in case everything is fine, upload the package? Thanks, Georg
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
