El mié., 15 ene. 2020 21:33, Utkarsh Gupta <utka...@debian.org> escribió:
> Hiya, > > On 13/01/20 12:00 am, David Suárez wrote: > > From my point of view packaging all the v3 gems could not be lot's of > > work, if we use the multi binary layout that gem2deb provides. > > The question is, is that worth the effort? > What would we want that for? Is there any need per se? > Maybe... to maintain same functionaly... Nows that v1 update path was break for the especial case of loomio... > > Renaming the packages to v2 is not the way to go, and will produces lots > > of duplicates, making endusers and ruby developers that want to consume > > this lib, very dizzy. > > To be very honest, I don't think Ruby developers use Debian packages. > `gem install` remains (mostly) everyone's favorite. > We only package those which are needed by Ruby/Rails App (for instance, > GitLab, Diaspora, Loomio, OBS, et al) and other things. > Sometimes also because we have RFP(s) :) > I mean *links* against... But nows that you say that, ping me when we need more reverse dependencies .... Similarly for Node, Perl, Golang, and other libraries. > > I don't think a person would want to `apt install ruby-aws-sdk` instead > of `gem install` it. It might also explain its low popcon score of 17. > > Even personally, whenever I write Ruby (though that's lesser than most > here do), I'd very much prefer playing with `gem/bundle install` instead > of installing it via apt. > > That said, I do not want to (and shall not) discourage you from > packaging those ~200 libs and making it perfect. But I'd much appreciate > that energy being spent to get all the Rails App(s) (GitLab, Loomio, > Diaspora, OBS, et al) in good shape and health :) > Im not the one who breaks it, sorry :p Best, > Utkarsh > Thanks
