MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <878v48om5u.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <1365031678-25188-1-git-send-email-felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
	<87y5clte1j.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<CAMP44s07KeL4uAChs3KFiqwcsCwWTvni6MzFGzXNeO7=sd6U6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<87wqs4rsjm.fsf@zancas.localnet>
	<CAMP44s2RuAGjJV089swpjwG9i5X=sARPYve6XZPyK7X7QwZBDg@mail.gmail.com>
	<878v48om5u.fsf@zancas.localnet>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 02:20:22 -0500
Message-ID:
 <CAMP44s2W_N2qha9GaadGzJDgqwqW41Nwsgc+UVL7P1h937CAFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] debian: package ruby bindings
From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: David Bremner <bremner@debian.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 6:35 PM, David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:34 AM, David Bremner <bremner@debian.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, but that doesn't really help us deal with support requests e.g. on IRC.
>>> Some "feature requests" for the bindings:
>>
>> Can you point to some of these requests, or are they hypothetical?
>
> I don't know how many support requests we've got, but yes, I remember at
> least one.

That's not a huge motivation.

>> Moreover, wouldn't making sure that the bindings are package mostly
>> solve this issue?
>
> Well, people wouldn't have to build and install the bindings, _if_ they
> happened to be using an OS with packages available. But not everyone
> uses binary packages. I guess for me it's just a software quality issue
> to have some minimal level of documentation.

If somebody needs that information it's very easy find, just googling
'notmuch ruby bindings', or looking at the way packages do it, which
this patch actually helps to solve.

-- 
Felipe Contreras