Re: rails pkg

2013-07-23 Thread Antonio Terceiro
[putting debian-ruby@l.d.o in the loop] On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:25:27AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Now when rails-4.0 hit sid, I would like to resume the talk on what to do > with rails in Debian. > > I propose to be much more aggressive and keep only the latest/greatest > upstream version, e

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-30 Thread Antonio Terceiro
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 03:40:47PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Ok, done, you have convinced me, especially because we can now Depends on > ruby-foobar-X.Y (= ${source:Version}). > > Please check rails-4.0.git in pkg-ruby-extras (and uploaded to experimental > to people to have something to play wi

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-28 Thread Ondřej Surý
Ok, done, you have convinced me, especially because we can now Depends on ruby-foobar-X.Y (= ${source:Version}). Please check rails-4.0.git in pkg-ruby-extras (and uploaded to experimental to people to have something to play with). Antonio, could you please add support for -D to dh_ruby? I have c

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-27 Thread Jordon Bedwell
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 09:20:22AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> You cannot get a bundled upstream tarball anywhere, so what's the point? > > Other points that make me think it would be easier to have a single > rails source package: > > -

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-27 Thread Antonio Terceiro
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 09:20:22AM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:52:39PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > > Ok, this suits me equally well (although I had to subscribe). > > > > > > Anyway I was thinking (along t

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-27 Thread Ondřej Surý
On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 12:37 AM, Antonio Terceiro wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:52:39PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Ok, this suits me equally well (although I had to subscribe). > > > > Anyway I was thinking (along the way home from work) that we probably > > should provide only one versi

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-24 Thread Antonio Terceiro
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 06:52:39PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Ok, this suits me equally well (although I had to subscribe). > > Anyway I was thinking (along the way home from work) that we probably > should provide only one version of rails in each Debian release (e.g. move > our problems to our

Re: [DRE-maint] rails pkg

2013-05-24 Thread Ondřej Surý
If we provide just one version then it doesn't really make sense to provide virtual packages, we can have real packages instead. O. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Praveen A wrote: > 2013/5/24 Ondřej Surý : > > Hi, > > > > what's your opinion on rails(-defaults) pkg? > > > > Should we bump it

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-24 Thread Ondřej Surý
Ok, this suits me equally well (although I had to subscribe). Anyway I was thinking (along the way home from work) that we probably should provide only one version of rails in each Debian release (e.g. move our problems to our downstream packages :)). We have only few downstream packages and it's

Re: rails pkg

2013-05-24 Thread Antonio Terceiro
Hi Ondřej, I suggest we use debian-ruby@lists.debian.org for discussion instead. On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 05:57:59PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Hi, > > what's your opinion on rails(-defaults) pkg? > > Should we bump it to 3.2 or just remove it and keep only rails3? > > (And what to do when rail