[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [DRE-maint] Candidate new Ruby policy

On 08/04/09 at 11:30 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > [D] Ruby library source package naming policy. New source packages
> >     should be named ruby-xxxx, with xxxx being the name of the library.
> >     Of course, there are lots of special cases here, and there might
> >     be better names for the source package name of some libraries.
> I don't have a strong preference for current libxxxx-ruby scheme over
> this one or otherwise, although moving everything to ruby-xxxx will
> require dependency information to be updated all over the archive,
> while leaving libxxxx-ruby could leave them all valid. Why are you
> proposing this change? 
> >     Existing Ruby libraries can either change name (and adopt the
> >     ruby-xxxx naming) or keep their existing name.
> I understand this is to ease the pain - but it gets us to an
> inconsistent state. I'd rather encourage people to do the naming
> switch if one is to happen, if for nothing else, to keep users from
> having two naming variations to search on.

The [D] point of the policy was for source packages, not binary
packages. The point is to provide a sane default choice (ruby-xxx) for
new packages. For existing packages, I don't really care about what is
done, and having different naming schemes for source packages
doesn't sound too harmful (it's already the case). But having new source
packages named libxxx-ruby, while their binary packages will be named
ruby(|xxx)-xxx, doesn't sound like a good idea.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Reply to: