El jue., 27 feb. 2020 22:29, Cédric Boutillier <bou...@debian.org> escribió:
> Dear David, > > I am re-reading your mail > > https://lists.debian.org/CAJg5+Z2th-FNAxLNHb9+xkRz6O1RKb0RFxGCJ=yHOFSw2F38=w...@mail.gmail.com > about the status of the various versions of ruby-aws-sdk. > > As I understand the situation now: > - the source/binary package ruby-aws-sdk-core v3, which was blocking the > upgrade path from v1 with a source package src:ruby-aws-sdk providing > several binaries, > was removed from unstable > The right way to go. - you propose with your mail to update and upload the v2 > src:ruby-aws-sdk package to unstable (an earlier broken(?) version is > in experimental) > As tests say, its broken, yes. - we don't discuss yet the upgrade to v3, but it will be needed at some > point because some rails apps need them (loomio). > I dont have any problem with loomio... I have a problem uploading things that brokes users functionality. If other parties involved in packages using ruby-aws-sdk are ok, I would > be happy to help you get this v2 to unstable. > The only reverse dependcy of aws is gitlab, and the current version is totally broken. Is strange, that a reverse depency of gitlab, that is taking too much love on his dependencies, has one totally broken... It would be faster to jump directly to v3, but there are some issues: > - the multibinary layout can help you create a source package from the > github repo > - but it would result in a huuuuge quantity of binary packages. It is a > lot of work for FTP masters to review them (once) and additional load > on the archive to add so many packages > As I say, packaging from gems should not the way to go. Is like packaging C libraries from distribution tars (not source ones): distribution tars == binary ones I dont see any complains on the review by the ftp masters... Nor on the load on the archive... We discussed this issue a little bit during the sprint, and I kind of > remember that the proposition we had was to have this multibinary source > with only the needed services provided as binary packages. Was it the > statement we reached? Dear participants of the sprint, don't hesitate to > say I am wrong... > > Cheers, > > Cédric >
