On 08/04/09 at 20:29 +0200, Michael Schutte wrote: > Hey everyone, > > On Sun, Apr 05, 2009 at 09:15:18PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Please reply to this mail, even if it's just to say "I'm OK with that". > > I would like to avoid moving further will all this without having broad > > agreement that this is the way to go. > > I’m in favour. :-) > > > [C] Ruby library package naming policy. Ruby library packages can > > choose between two naming schemes: > > I personally don’t like the idea of hundreds of transitional packages > floating around for an entire release cycle. The “getting closer to > Python” and “tracking the migration” arguments both seem a bit weak to > me to justify such a high-impact change, considering that the current > naming scheme isn’t really broken. > > > several ruby1.9.0-xxxx, ruby1.9.1-xxxx, jruby1.1-xxxx, as well as > > a ruby-xxxx which is a simple dependency package: > > Several packages, each one containing support for a specific > > Ruby version. > > And one ruby-xxxx binary package that will be (mostly) empty, > > and only depend on the current default ruby version. > > This should not be used for pure-ruby libraries (unless there's a > > very good reason not to use the ruby-xxxx scheme). > > This is the recommended way to support native libraries, as it > > avoids adding a dependency on each available Ruby version. > > This requires sourceful uploads of all the native-lib packages whenever > a new version of Ruby is introduced, right? ruby-support’s README file > states that the control files could be automatically generated at build > time to facilitate binNMUs. I like this idea, is it still up for > discussion?
It is, but requires a lot of work, which hasn't been done yet. My current plan is to evaluate the current state of Ruby packages, to get some real numbers on the number of pure-ruby and native packages. Then, as a first step, I will probably push for a ruby-support version that only deals with pure-ruby libs, and leave native libs for later (so we would have to deal with them manually). The problem is that, while we have a good idea of what happens with pure-ruby libs when supporting multiple ruby versions, we have no experience on supporting multiple ruby versions with native libs. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
