Am Dienstag, den 03.09.2013, 22:18 -0700 schrieb Russ Allbery: > tony mancill <tmanc...@debian.org> writes: > > > Thank you for pointing this out. I just recently uploaded a script, > > splitpatch, that I argued should be accepted as-is (i.e. as a "micro > > package") because of the dependency on ruby. > > > Given that ruby is becoming more popular for scripting, what do folks > > think about a catch-all package for ruby scripts? I don't have a good > > feel for what the right trade-off is between: > > > * reducing load on the archive by consolidating these tiny packages > > > * making good use of maintainer's time, the implication being that > > coordinating multiple (otherwise unrelated?) ruby scripts is going to be > > more of a time commitment for the maintainer(s) > > > and > > > * making it easy (or even possible) for users to find these scripts when > > the package name doesn't match upstream > > I think it makes a ton of sense to have several of these catch-all > packages split by implementation language. The biggest advantage is to > the maintenance of the catch-all package; most of us only consider > ourselves highly experienced in, or comfortable in, one or two languages, > and therefore it's harder to find maintainers who are comfortable with > packages that mix a bunch of languages. It's also helpful to be tied in > to the maintenance community for that language to weigh things like good > modules to rely on or not rely on, how burdensome dependencies are, etc. > There's also a minor advantage for the user who may not want to introduce > a whole new interpreter to systems that are tight on space or that need to > be kept simple. > > A moreutils-ruby (or some similar name) seems like a great idea to me. > > I would check with Joey first, though, just in case he disagrees with that > reasoning and would prefer to include the scripts directly in moreutils. > > (splitpatch might make more sense in devscripts, but devscripts I think > has the same set of constraints, albeit with different base languages. > Python and Perl at the moment, I think.)
devscript had only Perl and Shell scripts initially, but then gained Python scripts. I don't see any reason to not accept ruby script. ruby would pull in another ~ 13 MB of storage, but devscripts targets developer machines. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1378285972.3306.3.camel@deep-thought
