motu-release will revert libgems-ruby to the old state.
ubuntu at kitterman.com
Mon Sep 1 17:55:07 BST 2008
Another issue that is not addressed in your response is the version naming.
You uploaded something called a release candidate that was not, in fact a
release candidate. Based on the dialogue in the bug, it seems clear to me
that you knew it was a Git snapshot. Additionally, it appears to me that the
upstream code for the upload was taken from an untrusted source (a PPA
maintained by a non-developer) and not from upstream.
Personally, I find both of these issues severe problems.
Since the upload was reverted I learned that 1.3 will provide the ability to
do unpriviledged installs of Gems in user's home directories. I can see this
having some potential to mitigate some concerns that people have expressed.
Aside from the redesign effort that has proven controversial, I'd be willing
to consider an FFe for 1.3 based on the Debian packaging for this reason.
It'd need to be evaluated for maturity and all the usual things, but I think
it's worth considering.
Additionally, in the case of Python ez_install (of the ones you mentioned,
that's the one I'm most familiar with) it's use is highly discouraged in
Debian and it has been patched to be aware when there is a system installed
version of a module already present and to not over-ride it with installing
it's own in /usr/local. I think this is a substantially more reasonable
approach than the one that was removed.
More information about the ubuntu-devel