Re: confirming some package names before creating them (was Re: [Pkg-puppet-devel] in need of a little help for packaing puppet development kit with all dependencies)

[Georg Faerber <georg@debian.org>]

Hi,

On 20-02-15 19:15:34, Gabriel Filion wrote:
> For the following, here's what I'm intending to choose as a package
> name (ITPs still need to ben sent). I think these are more probably OK
> to be named without the "ruby-" prefix:
> 
>  * jgrep
>    -> this one seems rather clear to me since the main script can be
> used independantly on the CLI to process any JSON information
>  * facterdb
>    -> this one is usually mainly used as a library but it does ship a
> main script that can be used for printing a set of information from the
> library
>  * metadata-json-lint
>    -> same situation as facterdb: it's mainly used as a library but it
> does ship a script for running checks on a file independently on the CLI

Let's go with these, then.

> This one is a bit more tricky:
> 
>  * ruby-pathspec
>    -> it's mainly used as a lib but it does ship a script for testing
> values on the CLI.
>    * I've already sent an ITP for "ruby-pathspec" before I realized it
> was shipping a script. So if I need to change the name, I'll just need
> to know how I can deal with the ITP bug report to avoid issues.. send a
> bts command to re-title, or is there another manipulation necessary?

That's the way to go, probably adding a small comment to the body of the
mail to explain the name change.

>    * The script that's shipped is named "pathspec-rb" which differs from
> the gem name "pathspec". Should the package take on the name of that
> script, "pathspec-rb", even though the library itself is called
> "pathspec"? it seems a bit confusing
>    * "pathspec" is pretty generic and refers to a concept in the git
> codebase, so I would possibly tend to keep "ruby-pathspec" as the
> package name. what do others think about this?
 
Sounds good to me. Regarding the name of the script, in case this one
gets installed into /usr/bin, I guess it makes sense to use the same
name as well, as 'pathspec' is quite generic.

Cheers,
Georg