Bug#340376: libcommandline-ruby1.8: incomplete doc-base files break installation
Hi Aaron, On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 09:52:04AM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: [...] OK. In fact, I'm not sure what's the best place to put the documentation. I think I'm going to move the documentation to the dummy package and perhaps create symbolic links in the rest. Anything against that? The problem with that is that the dummy package won't necessarily be installed -- unless you set up circular dependencies, but we're trying to cut down on those. Yes, I know it it's necessarily installed, but I thought that it was a good enough compromise (for simplicity and don't get repeated files). I never thought about circular dependencies, don't worry ;-) Given that the documentation is still pretty small in an absolute sense, it should be okay to leave it as it is and just rename the doc-base files as I suggested. Alternatively, you could split it out into a new -common or -doc package, but the ftpmasters might consider that to be overkill. We're currently discussing how to package Ruby libraries in [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's why I haven't uploaded a new version yet. I think I'm going to fix the doc-base thing, and in another upload, when we have the proposal for the new Ruby policy, I'll fix it completely. -- Esteban Manchado Velázquez [EMAIL PROTECTED] EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#340376: libcommandline-ruby1.8: incomplete doc-base files break installation
Hi Aaron, On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 08:56:10PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote: Package: libcommandline-ruby1.8 Version: 0.7.10-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 9.10 (doc-base section 2.3) [...] It is mandatory to specify Files even if the only relevant file is the one already specified as the Index; could you please do so? Oops, sorry, I shouldn't have uploaded the package in its current state. Fixed in SVN. I will upload soon. Incidentally, it would probably also be wise to give the doc-base files versioned names (say, by appending -1.8) so that you won't run into trouble if you add support for other Ruby versions down the road. OK. In fact, I'm not sure what's the best place to put the documentation. I think I'm going to move the documentation to the dummy package and perhaps create symbolic links in the rest. Anything against that? Thanks for caring, and sorry for uploading the package as is :-( -- Esteban Manchado Velázquez [EMAIL PROTECTED] EuropeSwPatentFree - http://EuropeSwPatentFree.hispalinux.es Help spread it through the Net in signatures, webpages, whatever! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#340376: libcommandline-ruby1.8: incomplete doc-base files break installation
Esteban Manchado Velázquez [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oops, sorry, I shouldn't have uploaded the package in its current state. It's all right, everyone makes their share of broken uploads. Fixed in SVN. I will upload soon. Thanks! Incidentally, it would probably also be wise to give the doc-base files versioned names (say, by appending -1.8) so that you won't run into trouble if you add support for other Ruby versions down the road. OK. In fact, I'm not sure what's the best place to put the documentation. I think I'm going to move the documentation to the dummy package and perhaps create symbolic links in the rest. Anything against that? The problem with that is that the dummy package won't necessarily be installed -- unless you set up circular dependencies, but we're trying to cut down on those. Given that the documentation is still pretty small in an absolute sense, it should be okay to leave it as it is and just rename the doc-base files as I suggested. Alternatively, you could split it out into a new -common or -doc package, but the ftpmasters might consider that to be overkill. -- Aaron M. Ucko, KB1CJC (amu at alum.mit.edu, ucko at debian.org) Finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] (NOT a valid e-mail address) for more info.
Bug#340376: libcommandline-ruby1.8: incomplete doc-base files break installation
Package: libcommandline-ruby1.8 Version: 0.7.10-1 Severity: serious Justification: Policy 9.10 (doc-base section 2.3) The two files libcommandline-ruby1.8 installs in /usr/share/doc-base lack Files fields, breaking installation on at least some systems (those with doc-base installed?): } Setting up libcommandline-ruby1.8 (0.7.10-1) ... } error in control file: `Files' value not specified at /usr/sbin/install-docs line 638, IN line 9. } dpkg: error processing libcommandline-ruby1.8 (--configure): } subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 255 } dpkg: dependency problems prevent configuration of libcommandline-ruby: } libcommandline-ruby depends on libcommandline-ruby1.8; however: } Package libcommandline-ruby1.8 is not configured yet. } dpkg: error processing libcommandline-ruby (--configure): } dependency problems - leaving unconfigured } Errors were encountered while processing: } libcommandline-ruby1.8 } libcommandline-ruby It is mandatory to specify Files even if the only relevant file is the one already specified as the Index; could you please do so? Thanks! Incidentally, it would probably also be wise to give the doc-base files versioned names (say, by appending -1.8) so that you won't run into trouble if you add support for other Ruby versions down the road. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers unstable APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable') Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.14.2 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages libcommandline-ruby1.8 depends on: ii ruby1.8 1.8.3-3Interpreter of object-oriented scr libcommandline-ruby1.8 recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
