Dear Martin, On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 07:29:50PM +0200, Martin Ueding wrote:
> I would like to use the ruby gem "ronn" as a build-dep in another
> package, therefore I try to package this as Debian package. In order to
> deal with the dependencies of ronn, I also created two more packages.
Thnak you very much for your contribution. I cannot upload your
packages, but I am looking at it.
> The packages are made with gem2deb, the debian/* files are tweaked a little.
> The debian/control lists this mailing list as maintainer. Not sure what
> to do about this, I just left it like it is.
You can put your name in the Maintainer field, but if you decide to
maintain these packages under the umbrella of the Ruby Extras Team,
which I am sure, is a good idea, then leave the name of the team as
the maintainer, and your name as the uploader.
Regarding ronn, I see three points that could be improved, the last
issue being relatively minor:
- We try to enable the tests shipped in the gem during build time. There
are several ways to do this (see dh_ruby(1)). But one way would be to
create a debian/ruby-tests.rb containing something like
Dir["test/*.rb"].each {|f| require f}
The tests require test/unit and contest. ruby-test-unit is in NEW, and
ruby-contest is not packaged (yet). So maybe the first step would be to
have ruby-contest packaged. This also applies for ruby-mustache.
- there is a 'require "rubygems"' statement in bin/ronn. This does not
play well with libraries installed via apt. So these should be removed
with a patch at build time (I would simply remove the whole rescue
block, after requiring hpricot, ronn and rdiscount.
This also applies for ruby-rdiscount, where rubygems is required in
the test suite.
- For debian/copyright, I would be a little more verbose for the text of
the GPL-3 License (at least, write a full sentense).
On Debian systems, the full text of the GNU General Public
License version 3 can be found in the file
`/usr/share/common-licenses/GPL-3'.
I think it is a good practice to use the same license for the
packaging and the source itself. Moreover, DEP-5 mentions also that
the name MIT is a bit ambiguous, and should be replaced by 'Expat' if
the text of the license matches (which is the case here).
Best wishes,
Cédric
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
