El vie., 13 mar. 2020 19:32, Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org> escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 06:47:12PM +0100, David Suárez wrote: > > 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. > > Please take your tone down. Everyone here is trying to figure out the > best way forward. This type of behavior will not help to make your case. > Why ? Pigheaded == big headed in spanish... I dont see any respectful comment. Maybe lost in translation? Lol... Your are interpreting bad .... He had 10+ people looking into this issue during the Ruby sprint a few > weeks ago, and the consensus we reached was that for aws-sdk v3, it is > better to split the packages. > > Upstream decided to do this split, and in the long run it's worse for us > to try to do otherwise. They explicitly mention that going into v3, you > need to dependend specifically on the parts you need: > > https://github.com/aws/aws-sdk-ruby#upgrading-guide > > We now have v1 which is probably not good enough anymore; and maybe we > could have v2 now using the same scheme. But we won't be able to stay on > v2 forever, because other stuff will start to depend on v3, and > eventually we will have to deal with it. > Yeah, but not breaking things ....
