Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org> writes: > Hello Keith, > > You didn't explicitly ask anything, but I'm assuming you want an opinion > on the packages. :-)
Indeed! > also, CC:ing you explicitly as I'm not sure you are subscribed. let me > know if that's not necessary Thanks, I'd like to avoid subscribing if possible. > Disclaimer: I gave only a quick look at the first package. > > No packages use /usr/lib/ruby/data so far; we usually use > /usr/share/$package for data, but this usually requires some patching. Thanks, I'll patch that; I'm already having to patch asciidoctor-pdf to avoid using prawn-template, which looks like a nightmare and doesn't appear to be package-able at all. I have gotten a patch into asciidoctor-pdf, so I may start seeing what their schedule for replacing prawn-template is. > Another alternative that almost always does not require patching since > it follow an installation layout that matches what upstream assumes, is > to use the "rubygems" installation option¹, in which all Ruby code and > associated data is installed under a package-specific directory in > /usr/share/rubygems-integration/. > > ¹ `export DH_RUBY = --gem-install` in debian/rules Yeah, I'd rather be more compatible with the 'normal' debian locations; I packaged these quickly as there doesn't appear to be a credible asciidoc to pdf option in debian at this point, and I need it. > Also, I noticed that you are using the upstream git repository directly > with the Debian packaging in a git branch. I checked debian/control and > it has the Ruby team in Maintainer:. I personally find it nice and > practical to follow upstream git, but if you want to put these packages > for the team, it would be nice to be consistent with the rest of the > team packages and use the same structure: git-buildpackage, with > upstream source imported from tarballs and pristine-tar (i.e. the > standard git-buildpackage workflow) I haven't ever managed to make that work, but if that's what you want, I guess I'll go learn something new... Thanks much for your review; it looks like I've got only a couple of things to fix. With asciidoc being deprecated in policy, it seems somewhat pressing to migrate to asciidoctor-pdf, which means getting that packaged and into the repo. I'll post another note when I've fixed the above issues. -- -keith
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
