20:01:05 <boutil> #startmeeting
20:01:05 <MeetBot> Meeting started Tue May 27 20:01:05 2014 UTC.  The chair is boutil. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
20:01:05 <MeetBot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #help #info #idea #link #topic.
20:01:34 <boutil> Hi everybody and welcome to this 4th(?) Debian meeting!
20:02:44 <sbadia> \o/
20:02:50 <sbadia> boutil: is the chairman :)
20:02:57 <sbadia> we are only 3 ?
20:03:22 <boutil> maybe...
20:03:40 <sbadia> arf ok :/
20:04:27 <sbadia> we have a agenda for this meeting?
20:04:34 <boutil> nope
20:04:52 <boutil> we (I) are less and less organized
20:04:55 <terceiro> I think praveen added some topics to the wiki
20:05:29 <boutil> that was for last month's meeting
20:05:35 <terceiro> hm
20:05:41 <boutil> but we could still discuss them :)
20:05:57 <boutil> let's start with the status of the interpreters
20:06:08 <boutil> #topic interpreters, ruby2.1 status
20:06:14 <terceiro> ok
20:06:22 <terceiro> so ruby2.1 is already the default
20:06:25 <boutil> \o/
20:06:30 <terceiro> which is nice, since we still have ~6 months to the freeze
20:06:32 <sbadia> we have a lot of ftbfs about 2.1 :/
20:06:44 <boutil> /o\
20:06:55 <terceiro> how many is a lot?
20:07:35 <sbadia> no you're right, it's no so much
20:07:49 <boutil> there is about ~30, and half of them are FTBFS I think
20:07:57 <terceiro> #link https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ruby2.0-rm;users=debian-ruby@lists.debian.org
20:08:09 <terceiro> yeah I think we are fine
20:08:11 <boutil> but among them, many are not caused by ruby2.1
20:08:18 <terceiro> yes
20:09:22 <boutil> we have still packages with bugs about ruby1.8 hard dep. Should be remove them?
20:10:00 <terceiro> I think ruby-tmail is already not in testing
20:10:16 <boutil> I think about ruby-tmail, ruby-amrita*
20:10:20 <terceiro> we just need to take care to not spend time on lost causes
20:11:12 <boutil> If we didn't manage to do the work for ruby1.9.1, then for ruby2.1, I believe we will not able to do any better.
20:12:11 <terceiro> that's right
20:12:26 <boutil> are there other steps to make to improve ruby2.1 experience?
20:12:56 <boutil> there is the sourcefull upload of arch:all packages to get gemspec in the all/ subdir
20:13:54 <boutil> have all needed NMUs been scheduled? terceiro: I saw you asked some of them, but didn't follow closely
20:14:54 <terceiro> boutil: I think they weren't scheduled
20:15:06 <terceiro> we should probably infiltrate someone in the RT :)
20:15:20 <sbadia> ^^
20:15:46 <boutil> :)
20:16:38 <boutil> did you ask  all the needed ones? or was it the first wave?
20:17:53 <boutil> terceiro: ^
20:18:01 <terceiro> it was all the needed ones
20:18:04 <terceiro> AFAICT
20:18:06 <boutil> ok.
20:18:09 <terceiro> it was a small set BTW
20:18:29 <terceiro> #action terceiro will ping the RT regarding the needed NMU's to remove ruby2.0
20:18:39 <boutil> so everything looks good for ruby2.1 (or almost)
20:18:45 <terceiro> pretty much
20:18:58 <boutil> let's just fix some RC bugs :)
20:19:16 <boutil> Is that all for the interpreter?
20:19:24 <terceiro> ah a
20:19:27 <boutil> I have a quick topic:
20:19:33 <terceiro> I have a topic I would like to discuss as well
20:19:34 <boutil> #topic: ruby policy
20:19:36 <terceiro> boutil: you first
20:19:44 <boutil> No news :/
20:20:00 <terceiro> boutil: what's the current status?
20:20:05 <boutil> sbadia: I remember you proposed some help
20:20:18 <sbadia> yep :)
20:20:39 <boutil> terceiro: the status is almost the same as the status at the sprint, which was about the same as pre-wheezy
20:20:44 <sbadia> sorry for the last month…
20:20:46 <sbadia> yep
20:20:50 <terceiro> hahaha
20:21:13 <boutil> so let's hope we make some progress in the coming month :)
20:21:25 <boutil> #action boutil work on the policy
20:21:26 <terceiro> I think we kind of agreed to put the policy in src:ruby-defaults?
20:21:33 <boutil> ah?
20:21:44 <boutil> would be great.
20:21:46 <terceiro> no?
20:21:56 <boutil> There is really no need for an additional package
20:22:09 <terceiro> I am totally fine with that
20:22:20 <boutil> ok
20:22:29 <boutil> #action move policy to ruby-defaults
20:22:45 <boutil> that's it for the policy
20:22:46 <terceiro> we can add the policy to ruby-dev, or even create a new binary for it
20:22:52 <terceiro> ruby-dev makes a lot of sense I think
20:22:58 <boutil> indeed
20:23:22 <terceiro> ok, so let's to my point
20:23:46 <terceiro> #topic call for help: gem2deb maintainance
20:24:12 <terceiro> I have been working on too many things so I would like help with gem2deb
20:24:46 <terceiro> for instance there are 2 patches floating in the debian-ruby ML that I didn't get to review yet
20:25:20 <boutil> I can try to have a look
20:25:31 <sbadia> hum and 22 bugs
20:26:13 <terceiro> there are a lot of wishlist bugs though
20:26:14 <boutil> but I don't feel very confident to mess deeply with such a critical tool
20:26:52 <terceiro> boutil: if all tests pass you are most probably on the safe side :)
20:27:09 <boutil> terceiro: you're right :) Thanks TDD
20:27:26 <terceiro> besides, at this point there is probably no need for big changes
20:27:42 <terceiro> it's mostly keeping up with bugs and with the patches for those wishlists
20:27:51 <boutil> ok, I promise to have a look!
20:28:00 <terceiro> boutil: thanks a lot
20:28:12 <boutil> #action boutil help maintaining gem2deb
20:28:37 <boutil> another topic would be debci/gem2deb integration
20:28:50 <boutil> shall we discuss this now?
20:29:13 <terceiro> let's
20:29:15 <sbadia> yes
20:29:48 <boutil> #topic debci and gem2deb
20:30:24 <terceiro> so, there is some support in gem2deb already
20:30:29 <terceiro> see commit 4c961efe8c549e5f05a444c776cde5f54ba4e3de
20:30:52 * terceiro getting a proper link
20:32:04 <terceiro> #link http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-ruby-extras/gem2deb.git;a=commitdiff;h=4c961efe8c549e5f05a444c776cde5f54ba4e3de;hp=d2235fbaa55c5112d4acad3a5d60fedade81832f
20:32:16 <terceiro> what's pending is:
20:32:43 <terceiro> - extract the test runner to a separate binary package so that test suite don't need to depend on the whole gem2deb
20:33:13 <terceiro> - change dh-make-ruby to create the DEP-8 files
20:33:48 <terceiro> - ellaborate a strategy to mass-enable autopkgtest in the existing  packages (maybe not really feasible)
20:34:22 <boutil> that is already a lot
20:35:28 <boutil> what is exactly the workflow: where the new binary package will intervene: shall we build-depend and/or depend on it?
20:35:38 <boutil> it is still a bit vague in my mind
20:36:00 <boutil> ah it would be a dependency declared in the DEP-8 file?
20:37:00 <terceiro> yes!
20:37:06 <boutil> great.
20:37:19 <terceiro> and gem2deb would also depend on it
20:37:45 <terceiro> and the new binary would be used (without the --autopkgtest switch) by dh_ruby
20:38:10 <boutil> so after the build, we would run the DEP-8 test-suite
20:38:16 <terceiro> basicaly it's turning lib/gem2deb/test_runner.rb into /usr/bin/$something
20:38:33 <terceiro> and have dh_ruby call that instead of test_runner.rb
20:39:16 <boutil> ok, I see the global pattern now.
20:39:47 <KGB-0> 03Antonio Terceiro 05master cd0710f 06gem2deb 10debian/changelog 10lib/gem2deb/extension_builder.rb extension builder: display build logs in real time * 14http://deb.li/31i2v
20:40:14 <boutil> I have nothing more to ask.
20:40:22 <boutil> about that, I mean.
20:41:02 <boutil> next topic?
20:41:37 <boutil> #topic rails
20:42:36 <boutil> does anybody now the state of Rails4 in Debian?
20:42:46 <sbadia> nope…
20:43:31 <terceiro> me neither
20:43:46 <terceiro> I will probably want to check that out at some point
20:43:52 <terceiro> but wouldn't mind someone going for it as well
20:44:06 <boutil> do we provide a unified path to install the various rails file shipped by different package?
20:44:18 <terceiro> what do you mean
20:44:20 <terceiro> ?
20:44:49 <boutil> we have/had several bugs about packages shipping files with the same name
20:45:38 <terceiro> yes
20:45:47 <terceiro> specially packages that override rails generators
20:46:10 <terceiro> because the rails generator think abuses the $LOAD_PATH and because with rubygems people are usually safe from it
20:46:27 <boutil> some packages also are shippings assets or other files to be used with rails
20:46:58 <boutil> and I don't know if as they are installed now, rails will be able to use them.
20:47:02 <terceiro> the ones I worked on were patched to install the assets to /usr/share/$pkg and read them from there
20:47:22 <terceiro> e.g. ruby-jquery-rails
20:47:41 <boutil> praveen packages some packages of this kind, and we both don't have much clue about rails
20:48:17 <terceiro> I think using ruby-jquery-rails as an example is a good start
20:48:28 <boutil> ok, so we can look at it for inspiration
20:48:43 <terceiro> also ruby-coffee-rails and ruby-sass-rails IIRC
20:49:08 <boutil> about tests using rails apps. Is there anything reasonable we could do?
20:49:43 <boutil> that was a question by praveen on the list and a topic added in the wiki for the (previous) meeting
20:50:11 <terceiro> I never managed to look at it in depth
20:50:29 <terceiro> and TBH I didn't understand what the problem really is
20:52:24 <boutil> me neither.
20:52:40 <boutil> maybe let's keep it to the next meeting
20:53:22 <terceiro> ok
20:53:24 <boutil> It would be great if praveen could join the meeting, this would probably help
20:53:36 <boutil> other topics to discuss?
20:53:54 <sbadia> just two informal questions for me
20:54:01 <boutil> go ahead
20:54:17 <sbadia> about capsitrano (the mail on the ML)
20:54:28 <boutil> #topic various topics
20:54:39 <sbadia> capistrano >= 3 break the retro-compat.
20:54:55 <sbadia> we should add a notice on the installation
20:55:02 <terceiro> yes
20:55:06 <sbadia> or make another binary package
20:55:18 <sbadia> ok, how we do that ?
20:55:27 <terceiro> debian/NEWS
20:55:37 <sbadia> oh! ok
20:55:42 <sbadia> thanks
20:56:34 <terceiro> I want to look at that RFS at some point
20:57:42 <sbadia> no problem :)
20:57:57 <terceiro> regarding compatibility I think there isn't much to do
20:58:17 <boutil> I should also mention the (lack of) progress of Gitlab packaging. Still about ~70% of deps packaged.
20:58:28 <sbadia> yep :-/
20:58:32 <terceiro> it's not like the uprgade will break peoples server, they will "just" need to update their deployment setup
20:58:37 <boutil> It probably will not make it for jessie
20:58:37 <terceiro> before deploying again
20:58:51 <sbadia> terceiro: yep
20:59:03 <terceiro> there is also a migration guide out there
20:59:06 <terceiro> #link https://semaphoreapp.com/blog/2013/11/26/capistrano-3-upgrade-guide.html
20:59:59 <boutil> sbadia: you had a second question?
21:00:11 <terceiro> we have reached the 1-hour mark
21:00:27 <terceiro> boutil: sbadia any other topics?
21:00:53 <terceiro> still on capistrano:
21:01:03 <terceiro> official upgrade doc:
21:01:09 <terceiro> #link http://capistranorb.com/documentation/upgrading/
21:01:29 <sbadia> yep, sorry it's about vagrant, but apparently laurent said he want to contact the upstream (bundler is a pain…)
21:02:34 <sbadia> terceiro: i can link the upstream doc in NEWS ? or I should integrate them inside?
21:03:03 <boutil> sbadia: write a warning paragraph and add the link
21:03:15 <sbadia> no ok… yep forget my question :)
21:03:46 <boutil> let's wait for upstream's answer about vagrant?
21:03:50 <boutil> that would be all for me.
21:04:06 <sbadia> me too, thx!
21:04:18 <boutil> thanks for joining!
21:04:40 <boutil> #endmeeting