Comment 2 for bug 1990575

Thanks for the review Lukas!

I have been working on the update to version 3.0.0 in Debian but it will take some time. This is a major version bump and there are some breaking changes, I'll be uploading it to experimental and call for testing before moving it to unstable (and then sync into Ubuntu). Moreover, the rackup command was extracted from ruby-rack in this new release, this change will require the inclusion of ruby-rackup in the archive. I already filed an ITP bug for that here:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1023708

FWIW I will be adding myself to the Uploaders list of both packages so we can more easily keep things updated.

Regarding forwarding the manpage to upstream, I do not think this is needed. TBH the manpage seems to be outdated, and it shouldn't be generated manually, we should generate it during build time. I'll try to sort this out in ruby-rackup (the new source package).

And about the warnings, I do not see most of them in the new version I am preparing right now, so I think they are already sorted out. The only one I see is the one related to the substvars but it says ${shlibs:Depends} is not defined but it actually is. I have seen this warning in multiple packages without a reason.

And finally, I see you comparing ruby-rack with rails, those are completely different things. Rails is a web framework as you mentioned and ruby-rack is just a middleware implementation which is also used by rails (rails depends on ruby-rack). In the broad pcs context, we are proposing the promotion of ruby-sinatra which is a web framework and it could be compared in some aspects with rails. I hope this clarifies things here.