severity 476448 normal retitle 476448 RDoc documentation is not provided thanks
Please take a look at ITP bug #474748: it was my original intention to package ruby-pg as a separate package, but it was pointed out that the original library is obsolete and that Rails works fine with Ruby/DBI, which as of version 0.2.0 uses new 'pg' version instead of 'postgres'. In light of these discussions, I believe that this particular breakage should be solved on the Rails side: in the long term, upstream should abandon the obsolete version of PostgreSQL bindings in favor of the new version; until that is done, the package should warn users about this incompatibility and declare that the dependency on libpgsql is versioned (<< 0.7.9). Or you may choose to apply this patch ahead of upstream: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/attachment/ticket/10948/activerecord-ruby-pg.diff and make versioned depends (>= 0.7.9). On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Package: libpgsql-ruby1.8 > Version: 0.7.9.2008.03.18-1 > Severity: serious > > --- Please enter the report below this line. --- > The newest version of this library breaks existing installations, as > mentioned in NEWS.Debian.gz - However, it does not mention _what_ are > the API changes. Your packaging does not include the documentation for > the current API (/usr/share/doc/libpgsql-ruby1.8/postgres.html still > mentions «Last update: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 15:40:08 +0000»). > > Notably, this change breaks Rails (I'm also filing a bug against it), > which has no small share of users. I'm not filing the 'critical' bug > on libpgsql-ruby package as it _does_ package the newer module, which > breaks the API - However, probably the best way out would be to > provide both modules in this packages, strongly advising to use > 'pg'. Is there a reason not to have done this? > > Probably as part of your packaging you should also generate a > libpgsql-ruby-doc package, as usual in other Ruby modules. > > Thank you very much, -- Dmitry Borodaenko
