Hi, On 20-02-10 22:01:35, Gabriel Filion wrote: > I've pushed a bit more in my packaging work (and comprehension, thanks > all for the help on the IRC channel!) and I now have two more packages > that are ready: ruby-wisper and ruby-necromancer. > > Can someone please review my work in the salsa repos of the same > names?
Both uploaded to NEW, all in all pretty good! Some quick comments: - I did run wrap-and-sort -abt on both. (Could we please make this team policy, and let gem2deb run it by default?) - I improved the description of ruby-wisper slightly. - Regarding patches in general: please use a .patch extension. Also, not that important if there is only one, but helps in case one needs to handle more patches: adding a number in front, something like 0001-name-of-your.patch. > I've had to add a build-dep to ruby-wisper since the spec_helper.rb > file unconditionally "require"s the coveralls library but it's not > marked as a development requirement in the gemspec. > > I've reported this upstream: > https://github.com/krisleech/wisper/issues/182 Great! > Also, the necromancer library doesn't ship its .rspec file in the > published gem as a choice they made to avoid clutter in the releases. > > For now I've added a patch in debian/patches/ that re-adds the file > back in so that tests pass. However, upstream recommended that I build > with code from github. > I'm not sure if I should keep that patch in the debian package, or if > I should change how upstream releases are downloaded, instead, so that > I get the .rspec file with the rest of the upstream files. That's an easy patch, but in general, I would recommend to try to reduce the number of required patches to a minimum, ideally, to zero. I agree with upstream that in this case, pulling the tarball from GitHub makes sense, see ruby-gpgme for an example which does this. Thanks again for your work! Cheers, Georg
