Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Linux packaging #21

Closed
apjanke opened this issue Dec 25, 2018 · 7 comments
Closed

Linux packaging #21

apjanke opened this issue Dec 25, 2018 · 7 comments
Assignees
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@apjanke
Copy link
Owner

apjanke commented Dec 25, 2018

For distribution on Linux, I'd like to get Ronn-NG supported by major Linux distributions' package managers. Figure out how to do that.

Questions to consider:

  • How to announce the project to Linux packagers?
  • How mature should the project be before doing so? How likely are package managers to accept it?
  • Would a Makefile with a make install that works on Linux be a good short-term substitute?
@apjanke apjanke added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 25, 2018
@hosiet
Copy link

hosiet commented Dec 25, 2018

For Debian, the legacy ronn is being tracked at: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/ruby-ronn . This package will migrate down onto all other deb-based distributions.

It might be a good idea to ask Debian's packagers to switch upstream and package new releases if ronn-ng is mostly compatible with the old ronn for users.

As for build system (Makefile, etc), personally I know nothing about Ruby ecosystem but I guess a standard and universal buildsystem would certainly be better than a custom Makefile.

@apjanke
Copy link
Owner Author

apjanke commented Dec 26, 2018

Thanks for the pointers.

It might be a good idea to ask Debian's packagers to switch upstream and package new releases if ronn-ng is mostly compatible with the old ronn for users.

Yes, ronn-ng is a drop-in replacement for users. It provides the same ronn command with the same options; just with bug fixes and some enhancements.

As for build system (Makefile, etc), personally I know nothing about Ruby ecosystem but I guess a standard and universal buildsystem would certainly be better than a custom Makefile.

Ruby has a standard build system comprised of rake/gem/bundler. But that's mostly aimed at libraries, not applications: it doesn't support installing man pages, shell completion files, or the like. So I'm thinking of something like a Makefile to sit on top of rake/gem/bundler and do the additional steps for installing those bits.

@boutil
Copy link

boutil commented Feb 12, 2019

Debian has recently switched to this fork to provide the ronn tool:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=917318
It should be included in the next stable version, but currently it is affected by https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=921637 (which is the same as #24 , I believe). Since it is causing build failure for other packages, it can become a blocker issue for its inclusion in the near future.

@apjanke
Copy link
Owner Author

apjanke commented Feb 17, 2019

Uh oh! Thanks for pointing this out. I'll prioritize this.

@apjanke apjanke self-assigned this Feb 17, 2019
@boutil
Copy link

boutil commented Feb 18, 2019 via email

@apjanke
Copy link
Owner Author

apjanke commented Mar 5, 2019

I don't think I made the March 1 deadline, but it looks like the Debian packagers pulled in the patches for this fix and applied it to their 0.8.0 copy, so it'll still be included in the next release (“buster”, I think).

@apjanke
Copy link
Owner Author

apjanke commented Oct 9, 2019

The fact that Debian has picked up Ronn-NG is good enough for me. Closing this as fixed.

@apjanke apjanke closed this as completed Oct 9, 2019
@apjanke apjanke added this to ronn-ng Jan 4, 2024
@apjanke apjanke moved this to Closed in ronn-ng Jan 4, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
Archived in project
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants