Antonio Terceiro dijo [Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 01:50:58PM -0300]: > > Yes, I find it very sensible. Of course, this could be part of the > > gem2deb procedure, overridable in case <lib> is either not correctly > > guessed, or in case there is more than one library. The ideal would be > > to include every source file shipped as a library - Although there > > are many cases where libraries depend on symbols declared on other > > libraries, so we cannot just do a recursive "ruby -l $foo" on all > > lib/*.rb... But it would be the best way. > > We could change gem2deb in a way that it runs something equivalent to > the following unconditionally, independent of the actual unit tests: > > $ for ruby in ruby1.8 ruby1.9.1; do for file in $(find lib -name \*.rb); do > $ruby -c $file; done; done > (…) > This would make sure all code has proper syntax, at least for the Ruby > versions > the package claims to support. > > What do you guys think about this?
I think it won't do any harm - and given some details in the Ruby upgrading process, it can help us catch something before it bites a user. I expect the process to be quite fast. So, both thumbs up from me. _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
