On Saturday 31 May 2014 16:08:31 Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote: > If I had to pick one, I think I'd probably go with #3, in the desperate > hopes that the two "plugins" can simply be fixed at whatever version > they are at the time of the main jekyll update and that we won't run > into problems needing an update of one of them between jekyll updates. > But, I'm not the maintainer, so I'm happy to do it however you guys and > gals would like.
Given that Debian contributor (*) time is limited, I'd shoot for the solution that limit the work on contributor's time (provided users are not impacted), i.e. solution #1: create a package per gem. (like ruby-jekyll-test-plugin) > If you'd like to look at my work so far, I've put it up at > https://github.com/hlieberman/debian-jekyll. You could also push your work on a new branch on pkg-ruby-extras/jekyll repo. This would avoid reviewers to add a remote to their git repo. > I have the package lintian > clean (or, it will be once an actual maintainer builds it and lintian > stops whimpering about NMUs) except for the upstream GPG pedantic tag, > which I will ping upstream about at some point to see if we can fix. Cool. Thanks for your work. All the best (*) which includes DD, maintainer and volunteers like you -- https://github.com/dod38fr/ -o- http://search.cpan.org/~ddumont/ http://ddumont.wordpress.com/ -o- irc: dod at irc.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/2679772.vXF3jpla4Z@ylum
