On 14/08/08 at 07:05 -0000, Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 05:48:34AM -0000, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Some comments: > > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in > > debian/copyright. > > debian/operating_system.rb has the following statement: > > # Licensed unded the GPL. See /usr/share/common-licenses/GPL > > Isn't that enough ? Adding a mention to the debian/copyright file would > be advisable though.
Of course not. Which version of the GPL? > > - I'm still not convinced by your update-alternatives hack. This > should *really* go upstream, so it's fixed for every distro, not just > Ubuntu. > > Agreed. The gem system has currently shortcomings. The > update-alternatives proposal is one way to address the issue. Upstream > seems cooperative on that point as it provided the necessary hooks to > implement such a system. So upstream is aware of the problem. They may > work on solving it and it can take some time. > > On the other hand this proposal is one step toward fixing the issue, and > it works now. Once upstream comes up with a good solution, we can > revisit the usage of update-alternatives to manage gems binaries in > /usr/local/bin. Instead of using a debian-specific feature (update-alternatives), I think that this should be implemented directly inside rubygems, so it becomes possible for upstream to integrate this feature. Solving it in a debian-specific clearly sends the wrong message to upstream, especially after upstream has been helpful by adding hooks. > > - you base your version on a git snapshot, with a >5kloc diff compared to > > the current version in debian unstable. Is that really reasonable, since we > > are far in the Ubuntu release cycle AFAIK? > > IMO this is perfectly acceptable as we're not past FeatureFreeze. That > means new upstream version can still be uploaded to the archive. Note that it's not a new upstream version. It's a git snapshot. > > - have you talked to Daigo Moriwaki about those deep changes to his > Debian package? If not, when do you plan to? > > Talking to Daigo Moriwaki would be helpful. However considering the > current freeze for Lenny I doubt that this patch will be accepted in > Debian before Ubuntu enters FeatureFreeze. The point is not to get it into Debian *now*, but to make sure that Daigo agrees with the solution, so Ubuntu doesn't maintain divergence on this. > > If I understand it correctly, you want to give Ubuntu a competitive > > advantage by not working with upstream to address this problem globally. > > That doesn't sound right. > > > > We're trying to improve the usage of gems so that the end user has a > good experience using it on Ubuntu. This work involves upstream (they > provided the necessary hooks) and also some integration work by the > Ubuntu team so that cooperation with dpkg works well. IMO upstream won't > be able to resolve all of the issue as there will always be some distro > specific details (location of paths, support for multiple versions). The path issue is completely orthogonal to the issue of binaries being overwritten. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- Add rubygems bin to PATH https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/145267 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
