Am 17.05.2013 um 09:42 schrieb Hadret <[email protected]>: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:21:09AM +0200, Martin Gerhard Loschwitz wrote: >> Filip, >> Am 17.05.2013 um 09:15 schrieb Filip Chabik <[email protected]>: >> in fact, I had already uploaded packages to experimental (I just got a >> REJECT on >> them yesterday for some minor things though). > > This is awesome news (that you already did it, not that it was > rejected). I have fingers crossed for this to succeed next time you > try. > Ya. It really wasn't anything big, but pcsd scares the shit out of me a little bit, esp. because it tries to download something during the build process, which looks rather scary. Oh well.
>> Have you included pcsd? That looked highly broken the last time I looked at >> it. > > As far as I saw (I removed packages and my built once you told me, that > you already done it), pcsd was included in the packages -- thing is, I > had no place to test it out :( > Ouch :\ >> I have actually packaged the ruby gems required for pcsd already. It's just >> that >> pcsd looks like something that will blow up every second, so I did not >> include it >> in the package I originally uploaded to experimental. > > Is it the approach suggest for package maintainers? I'm asking cause I > wonder whether there's no conflict in installing gems via gem command > and APT? > Well, the general assumption is: If a package needs a ruby gem, that gem would need to be packaged as a dependency. Installing ruby-gems via postinst is something I would rather not want to do; I don't know if it is even allowed as per policy. The Ruby packages I produced are here: http://people.debian.org/~madkiss/ruby/ I'd be happy if somebody could discuss with the Ruby maintainers how to carry on with this; e.g. would there be any interest at their end to maintain these? > Filip Best regards Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
