json files in source for ruby-twitter

2014-05-02 Thread Pirate Praveen
Hi, There are many json files used for testing and lintian gives following errors. ruby-twitter: source-contains-prebuilt-javascript-object spec/fixtures/configuration.json means line length is about 1318 characters ruby-twitter: source-is-missing spec/fixtures/configuration.json I have

Re: json files in source for ruby-twitter

2014-05-02 Thread Christian Hofstaedtler
* Pirate Praveen prav...@debian.org [140502 10:33]: There are many json files used for testing and lintian gives following errors. ruby-twitter: source-contains-prebuilt-javascript-object spec/fixtures/configuration.json means line length is about 1318 characters ruby-twitter:

Re: What is +gh? (WAS Re: [DRE-maint] ruby-em-redis_0.3.0+gh-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable, unstable)

2014-05-02 Thread Pirate Praveen
On Tuesday 29 April 2014 02:32 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote: This information belongs in debian/README.source or even debian/copyright, but not in the version number, especially since it is completely opaque to our users. Cheers, Vincent It is useful when importing multiple tarballs of the same

handling file conflicts with generators being installed in top level directory

2014-05-02 Thread Pirate Praveen
Hi, I think the upstream should keep it in a sub-directory like temple, but strong_parameters upstream seems adamant on not changing. Should this be handled at gem2deb level? Moving to debian-ruby for wider comments. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746677 Or should we handle

Re: handling file conflicts with generators being installed in top level directory

2014-05-02 Thread Antonio Terceiro
On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 07:32:32PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: Hi, I think the upstream should keep it in a sub-directory like temple, but strong_parameters upstream seems adamant on not changing. Should this be handled at gem2deb level? Moving to debian-ruby for wider comments.

Re: mass bug report filing, update of the Ruby-Version attribute is needed for jessie

2014-05-02 Thread Antonio Terceiro
On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: Currently more than 300 packages have a Ruby-Version attribute which lists either ruby1.8 or ruby1.9, but neither ruby2.0 or ruby2.1. When using these packages as gems, then the gem is not found. The recent ruby gems

Re: What is +gh? (WAS Re: [DRE-maint] ruby-em-redis_0.3.0+gh-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable, unstable)

2014-05-02 Thread Cédric Boutillier
Hi! On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 04:34:32PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: On Tuesday 29 April 2014 02:32 PM, Vincent Fourmond wrote: This information belongs in debian/README.source or even debian/copyright, but not in the version number, especially since it is completely opaque to our users.

Re: What is +gh? (WAS Re: [DRE-maint] ruby-em-redis_0.3.0+gh-1_amd64.changes ACCEPTED into unstable, unstable)

2014-05-02 Thread Pirate Praveen
On Saturday 03 May 2014 03:25 AM, Cédric Boutillier wrote: If you notice this before you push to alioth, you can delete the git upstream/xxx tag, remove the upstream tarball in the parent directory, and import again the new tarball from Github with gbp import-orig, with the very same upstream