Re: [DRE-maint] Candidate new Ruby policy
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 07:06:39PM +0200]:
> > > 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.
Umh... Still, why are you proposing the change from libxxx-ruby to
ruby(|xxx)-xxx for (either source or binary) packages? I completely
agree they should be consistently named, but libxxx-ruby is much more
widespread nowadays.
And I'd add that existing packages should be homogeneized as much as
possible, even if it means going again through NEW.
Greetings,
--
Gunnar Wolf - gwolf@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF
Reply to: