Debian Bug report logs - #247989
O: rdoc -- Generate documentation from ruby source files

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Brian Almeida <bma@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: O: rdoc -- Generate documentation from ruby source files

Date: Sat, 8 May 2004 08:45:28 -0400

Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

I no longer use this package and am ill-equipped to maintain it.

Brian

Message #10 received at 247989@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

To: 247989@bugs.debian.org, Brian Almeida <bma@debian.org>, akira yamada <akira@debian.org>

Subject: Re: O: rdoc -- Generate documentation from ruby source files

Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:10:04 -0500

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi everyone,

Is there still a point to keeping the rdoc package around? It looks like
it depends on Ruby 1.8, so it's equivalent to the rdoc1.8 package. If
this is the case, I would suggest just removing rdoc and maybe renaming
rdoc1.8 to rdoc.
-- 
Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 247989@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul van Tilburg <paulvt@debian.org>

To: Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>, 247989@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Brian Almeida <bma@debian.org>, akira yamada <akira@debian.org>, Debian Ruby list <debian-ruby@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#247989: O: rdoc -- Generate documentation from ruby source files

Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 23:14:46 +0200

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> Is there still a point to keeping the rdoc package around? It looks like
> it depends on Ruby 1.8, so it's equivalent to the rdoc1.8 package. If
> this is the case, I would suggest just removing rdoc and maybe renaming
> rdoc1.8 to rdoc.

Well as I exspect ri to drag ri1.8 along, and ruby ruby1.8 because it's
just the current version, I was already confused that there was not
an rdoc virtual package.

So I would suggest to make this the same as all other ruby related
binary packages. A rdoc dummy package depending on rdoc1.8.
I believe this isn't mentioned in the Ruby Policy[1] though, only for
modules[2].

Paul

1: http://pkg-ruby.alioth.debian.org/ruby-policy.html/ch-programs.html
2: http://pkg-ruby.alioth.debian.org/ruby-policy.html/ch-module_packages.html

-- 
Student @ Eindhoven                         | JID:   paul@luon.net
University of Technology, The Netherlands   | email: paulvt@debian.org
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG: finger paul@luon.net

Message #20 received at 247989-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tobias Toedter <t.toedter@gmx.net>

To: 247989-done@bugs.debian.org

Cc: debian-ruby@lists.debian.org

Subject: rdoc is included in ruby-defaults now

Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 15:33:50 +0200

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 23:14:46 +0200, Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Joe Wreschnig wrote:
> > Is there still a point to keeping the rdoc package around? It looks like
> > it depends on Ruby 1.8, so it's equivalent to the rdoc1.8 package. If
> > this is the case, I would suggest just removing rdoc and maybe renaming
> > rdoc1.8 to rdoc.
> 
> Well as I exspect ri to drag ri1.8 along, and ruby ruby1.8 because it's
> just the current version, I was already confused that there was not
> an rdoc virtual package.
> 
> So I would suggest to make this the same as all other ruby related
> binary packages. A rdoc dummy package depending on rdoc1.8.
> I believe this isn't mentioned in the Ruby Policy though, only for
> modules.

It looks like this is accomplished in version 1.8.1-7 of ruby-defaults, 
which entered unstable on May, 22. In the meantime, that version of 
ruby-defaults has gone into testing, therefore I'm closing this bug.

If anybody feels this is inappropriate, please do not hesitate to reopen it 
again.

Cheers,

- -- 

Tobias

    Bigamy is having one spouse too many.  Monogamy is the same.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA0Ew+CqqEJ0Fs8twRAtNzAJkB/urNtnXRsfQPj2r3dna/Q6NwHACeIIUq
p5rItYeYx6lM43TqGOop8Ww=
=BooC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.