On 27/02/11 at 16:31 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 27/02/11 at 14:07 +0100, Jérémy Lal wrote: > > On 25/02/2011 01:10, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > > >> On 30/01/11 at 22:20 -0300, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > >>> Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí: > > >>>>> a) only native code: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Packages: ruby1.8-foo, ruby-1.9.1 etc > > >>>>> > > >>>>> All of them must provide ruby-foo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> b) both pure-ruby and native code > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Packages: > > >>>>> ruby-foo - contains pure-ruby code > > >>>>> ruby1.8-foo - contains native code for ruby1.8 > > >>>>> ruby1.9.1-foo - contains native code for ruby1.9.1 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ruby1.8-foo and ruby1.9.1-foo (etc) depend on ruby-foo > > >>>>> > > >>>>> ruby-foo depend on the version for the default interpreter (so that > > >>>>> installing ruby-foo will get you something that words) > > >>>> > > >>>> I think that we should go for this. > > >>> [...] > > >>>> Could you update the Wiki page? :-) > > >> > > >> Note that this creates a dependency loop. I'm not sure if that's > > >> considered bad or not. > > > > > > Yes, I explicitly noted that when I updated the wiki page. I guess this > > > circular dependency is not critical since it is a very short cycle in > > > the dependency graph (A depends on B or C; B and C depend on A). I also > > > don't see a sane way to avoid this type of dependency in our case. > > > > That rings a bell : http://bugs.debian.org/549442 > > > > But if i understand well, those circular dependencies will only last > > during migration to new policy ? > > I don't really trust Bill's opinion on this. I've just asked > debian-devel@.
So, according to the feedback on debian-devel@, we should probably duplicate the arch-independent part in every arch-dependent package, or introduce a ruby-foo-common package that contains the common parts. I suggest that we just duplicate the files if it doesn't prevent co-installability (i.e there are no files shipped in /usr/share, for example). And switch to ruby-foo-common if it's required to bring co-installability, or if the arch-independant parts are really huge. Now we need someone to implement this in gem2deb. hint hint. :-) - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
