On 08/09/09 at 16:13 -0600, Joshua Timberman wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello Ruby Extras Team!
>
> Our (Opscode's) short term Debian/Ubuntu packaging goal was to get
> Ubuntu accepted to Karmic Koala Universe before the Feature Freeze
> deadline. This was accomplished, and we want to move forward with
> having Chef and its dependencies available in Debian as well. Bryan
> McLellan started the effort and made a lot of progress. Moving
> forward, I'll be the primary maintainer of the Opscode-authored
> packages[0] for both Debian and Ubuntu.
>
> Current status as far as Debian packaging goes:
>
> Already in Debian
> =
>
> * The mixlib packages are in the DRE SVN repo, and already included
> in Debian. I don't believe they're packaged out of the DRE SVN repo.
Uh? Does it mean that they should be removed from the SVN repo?
> * libmixlib-config-ruby is version 1.0.9, but needs to be updated to
> version 1.0.12, which includes a regression bugfix for Chef 0.7.10.
Where is the source? :-)
> * Ohai 0.3.2, the latest version, is uploaded in Debian and synced
> to Ubuntu Karmic. The debian packaging is not in the DRE SVN repo.
Why?
> Waiting to be reviewed/uploaded
> ===
>
> * Merb was originally uploaded by DD Thom May. Some debian/copyright
> and source tarball issues were pointed out by AA Torsten Werner,
> which I corrected mainly by repackaging the source tarball
> orig.tar.gz. Merb is currently waiting in the mentors upload queue.
> The debian packaging directory is in the DRE SVN, but the
> orig.tar.gz is not.
That's fine, as long as your debian/watch works.
> * Chef 0.7.10, the latest version released by Opscode, is in the DRE
> SVN. The packaging is based on the same which was uploaded to Ubuntu
> Karmic Koala.
>
> * CodeRay 0.8.3 is in the DRE SVN repo. This replaces the deprecated
> 'libsyntax' library. The source tarball is not automatically posted
> to the official CodeRay project page at this time, but the package
> is in Ubuntu Karmic, could it be sync'd?
You can't sync packages from Ubuntu to Debian :-) It doesn't work this
way.
> What needs to happen for this to move forward?
Well, as you have seen, we really lack sponsors in the ruby team. So it
would really help, when requesting sponsorship, if you (that applies to
everybody) provided an "executive summary". I would have expected
something like:
<--
I've checked that the following packages are lintian-clean, build fine
using piuparts in an up-to-date sid env, and are otherwise perfectly
fine to be upload to Debian, TTBOMK.
Could you please review and upload them, in that order?
The version in the DRE repository is fine to be uploaded as-is. (Note:
that means that you set the target to unstable, not UNRELEASED)
- libfoo-ruby 1.2-3
[...]
-->
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
___
Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
