On 14/08/08 at 07:53 -0000, Neil Wilson wrote: > 2008/8/14 Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hi, > > > > Some comments: > > - debian/operating_system.rb is not properly licensed, and not mentioned in > > debian/copyright. > > Agreed. That needs some tidying up. I can't see any copyright message > in there about the debian packaging either. Does Debian need that as > well?
Yes, please file a bug. > > - why the switch to simple-patchsys? > > That's easy - it's simpler :-). cdbs-edit-patch is the bees knees. No > longer do I hate patching. You are introducing an unnecessary divergence between Debian and Ubuntu, which will make it harder to merge the changes later. > > - 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? > > I have it on good authority that the version in Debian may very well > be out of date by the end of the month. ;-) And? I think Ubuntu (like Debian) cares about stability, not only about having the very latest software available. > > - have you talked to Daigo Moriwaki about those deep changes to his > Debian package? If not, when do you plan to? > > At the moment Debian bug #403407 is still marked "won't fix" so there > is clearly going to be a divergence whatever happens. You really need > to alter the bug status if Debian is serious about fixing the path > problem. > > I'd be more than happy to sync up with the excellent work Daigo has > done on his package, but they're never going to be the same until > Debian accepts that the problem is fixable. > > Can you do something about that? *You* can do something about it: communicate with the Debian developer, so he knows that you are working on a solution. AFAIK, it's not the case currently. > > - You never answered by question about a bug# in > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libgems- > ruby/+bug/145267/comments/42 . > > Could you help and file one? Otherwise Debian will have to wait. I'm > kinda busy with a FeatureFreeze deadline and my real job. That's a different bug. Even in Ubuntu, it should be a different bug. > > 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. > > Yes I suppose you probably see it that way. I can't help you with that > and I don't understand why you would want to adopt such a viewpoint. > > I'll let the rubygems commit logs, bug tracker and mailing list speak > for whether I work with upstream or not. You talked to upstream to get the hooks, but then you implemented an Ubuntu-specific solution, that will never be able to be merged upstream, for an upstream problem. That says it all. -- | 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