El vie., 13 mar. 2020 18:30, Pirate Praveen <prav...@onenetbeyond.org> escribió:
> > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 pm, Cédric Boutillier > <bou...@debian.org> wrote: > > 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 > > - 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) > > - we don't discuss yet the upgrade to v3, but it will be needed at > > some > > point because some rails apps need them (loomio). > > > > If other parties involved in packages using ruby-aws-sdk are ok, I > > would > > be happy to help you get this v2 to unstable. > > > > 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 > > > > 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... > > > > I think we abandoned the idea of a single source since each component > had independent versions. So we got to go with separate source packages > for the services we need. > We go worst then... managing n(gems), n(versions for each gem)... seeing thats is clear than each release would be aligned with the upstream git version.... Like i said to boutil, is better to go with the upstream release version instead of maintaining n versions for each gem... Is not more simple to package ruby-s3 as ruby-s3-v3? If it makes happy loomio packagers... I think this is a pigheaded decision... Is have no sense removing functionality for packaging another app. Cheers,
