On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 07:19:15PM +0000, Shawn wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>wrote: > > > Lucas Nussbaum escreveu: > > > Mmh, I've never been very clear on whether circular dependencies are > > > actually that bad. In that case they would be pretty limited. > > > > Regardless of how we feel about circular (build) dependencies, I think > > we should diverge as little as possible from upstream, i.e. letting the > > interpreter package embed the gems it was design to, and allowing > > standalone packages of those gems to override the pre-bundled gems - > > just like it would work with outside of Debian. > > > > Would It be bad to have the package broken up into ruby-minimal and the > gems and then have a metapackage depend on the whole standard distribution? > That way packages can depend on less than the standard distribution. > (gem2deb wouldn't do this automatically) I'm not sure what we would gain with that. -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature