Re: [PATCH] gnu: ruby-net-http-digest-auth: Add new package

[Frederick Muriithi <fredmanglis@gmail.com>]

On 17 Nov 2016 1:56 p.m., "Ben Woodcroft" <b.woodcroft@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Hi Frederick, thanks for the updated patch.
>
> I didn't see any functional issues with this patch, but I had some trouble testing this out - can I ask how to test it? My problem was simply that I didn't know of a http-only server with this authentication method. I ask because the last commit to the development repository was in 2013.

Well, I added the package since it is a dependency of the ruby gem
mechanize, which is what I really wanted to add.

Mechanize is used to simplify interaction with websites, and thus,
might encounter sites that require Digest Authentication, even if they
are not necessarily public facing

>
> Below is some minor points about the patch. If you are happy with them and we are confident in the testing then I'll push with these changes. Do not worry about sending an updated patch.

The points are okay with me. I'm new to the packaging world, so I'm
still learning. Thanks for the pointers

>> + "14801gr34g0rmqz9pv4rkfa3crfdbyfk6r48vpg5a5407v0sixqi"))))
>> +    (build-system ruby-build-system)
>> +    (inputs
>> +     `(("ruby-hoe" ,ruby-hoe)))
>
> This should be a native-input.
>

Okay. Thanks.


>> +    (synopsis
>> +     "Library for HTTP Digest Authentication based on RFC 2617")
>
> In general we make a habit of keeping this all on one line. How about this?
>
>     (synopsis "RFC 2617 HTTP digest authentication library")
>

That is better than what I had.


>> +    (description
>> +     "This library implements HTTP's Digest Authentication scheme in ruby.
>> +This enables you to use the Digest Authentication scheme,
>> +over the more insecure Basic Authentication scheme")
>
> My science-based bias against personal pronouns perhaps, how does this sound?
>
>     (description
>      "This library implements HTTP's digest authentication scheme based on
> RFC 2617.  This enables the use of the digest authentication scheme instead
> of the more insecure basic authentication scheme.")
>

Also okay.