severity 322016 normal thanks Hi Dmitry,
> This bug is relevant to many other Ruby packages, so I'm copying > debian-ruby ML. Were there any responses to this on the Ruby ML? > Debian Ruby Policy states: > The package name libfoo-ruby should be used for a dummy package that > depends on libfoo-rubyX.Y that is packaged for default version of > ruby X.Y. By using such a dummy package, user can easily follow > upgrading. > Ruby 1.6 -> 1.8 wasn't the last migration ever, so when Ruby 2.0 is > out, we will need all these dummy dependency packages again. If we are > to keep the Ruby Policy as it is, this bug should be closed. > Or should we get rid of all the dummy packages and deal with the next > migration is some other way? So, the question I have is, are users actually using these packages in the described manner? It seems that *packagers* are not, or at least, there are no packages in Debian which depend on libalgorithm-diff-ruby. Since libalgorithm-diff-ruby also doesn't Depend: ruby (>= 1.8), ruby (<< 1.9), having the libalgorithm-diff-ruby package installed doesn't ensure that the module is available for use from /usr/bin/ruby, so it doesn't seem very useful for preserving the user experience. In any case, this package isn't a dummy package in the sense the submitter meant it, so this bug should certainly be downgraded. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
