Comment 52 for bug 145267

On 14/08/08 at 07:53 -0000, Neil Wilson wrote:
> 2008/8/14 Lucas Nussbaum <email address hidden>:
> > 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 be out of date by the end of the month.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 address hidden> http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: <email address hidden> GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |