On 19/01/11 at 12:56 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:27:22PM +0100]:
> > > Heh, not the first time you push that way :)
> > >
> > > Still, I think the libfoo-ruby makes more sense when we are talking
> > > about libraries. If an unexperienced user sees (pic
On 19/01/11 at 11:14 -0800, Clint Byrum wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 12:44 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:33:02PM +0100]:
> > > > How is the compatibility between implementations right now? If a
> > > > package works across interpreters (it should be hu
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 12:16 PM, Lucas Nussbaum
wrote:
> Something else I forgot:
>
> 6) Rdoc generation, and distribution in a -doc package.
> Do we want that? Have you ever used it?
> I don't think I've ever used it.
> I think that it would be better to have a tool that generates the rdoc
> for
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Something else I forgot:
>
> 6) Rdoc generation, and distribution in a -doc package.
> Do we want that? Have you ever used it?
> I don't think I've ever used it.
> I think that it would be better to have a tool that generates the rdoc
> for a given library in $CURDIR, that
Something else I forgot:
6) Rdoc generation, and distribution in a -doc package.
Do we want that? Have you ever used it?
I don't think I've ever used it.
I think that it would be better to have a tool that generates the rdoc
for a given library in $CURDIR, that users could use whenever needed.
-
On Wed, 2011-01-19 at 12:44 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:33:02PM +0100]:
> > > How is the compatibility between implementations right now? If a
> > > package works across interpreters (it should be human-tested! Maybe
> > > running its test suite with the
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 08:01:57PM +0100]:
> > Run the test suite four times per package, once with each interpreter?
> > Well, of course it gives better coverage... But some test suites are
> > quite long to run. And if we reach a stage where the different
> > interpreters are co
On 19/01/11 at 12:44 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:33:02PM +0100]:
> > > How is the compatibility between implementations right now? If a
> > > package works across interpreters (it should be human-tested! Maybe
> > > running its test suite with the differ
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:27:22PM +0100]:
> > Heh, not the first time you push that way :)
> >
> > Still, I think the libfoo-ruby makes more sense when we are talking
> > about libraries. If an unexperienced user sees (picking a random
> > package of mine) a package called 'ruby
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:33:02PM +0100]:
> > How is the compatibility between implementations right now? If a
> > package works across interpreters (it should be human-tested! Maybe
> > running its test suite with the different available interpreters would
> > do, although I don
On 19/01/11 at 12:29 +, Alex Young wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:27 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 18/01/11 at 12:26 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> > > Well, building a package should always (in a perfect world) include
> > > running its tests. Of course, build dependencies can be hug
On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 20:27 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 18/01/11 at 12:26 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Well, building a package should always (in a perfect world) include
> > running its tests. Of course, build dependencies can be huge. But I
> > don't think it is _that_ bad. And assuming
On 19/01/11 at 01:05 -0700, Joshua Timberman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>
> Ohai!
>
> On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>
> >> The default ruby version should still be 1.8 at least for some
> >> time, given that most libraries are not supporting 1.9 yet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ohai!
On Jan 18, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>> The default ruby version should still be 1.8 at least for some time,
>> given that most libraries are not supporting 1.9 yet.
>
> Hmm... given that we would probably target now+2yr for Wheezy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Jan 18, 2011, at 12:33 PM, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Why wouldn't you want to do it with every available interpreter? That's
> what is implemented in gem2deb currently.
In an ideal world, it would be awesome if every Ruby library worked in every
i
15 matches
Mail list logo
