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

Re: Naming of source and binary packages (Was: Ruby packaging in wheezy: gem2deb, new policy, etc.)

Lucas Nussbaum escreveu isso aí:
> Hi,
> I'm resurecting this subthread to discuss the naming of packages.
> On 19/01/11 at 12:56 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Agree. And maybe it's overkill to separate just the library from an
> > eight line long program (the case of haml, sass, html2haml, css2sass,
> > ...) to keep things clean. But OTOH, here it would be worth analyzing
> > what are we aiming at with each individual package - I picked
> > libhaml-ruby as an example, so:
> > 
> > - Is it a library? If so, it deservers having the 'ruby' particle in
> >   the name. And IMO it benefits from being ^lib, as it is clearer
> > 
> > - Is it an application? Yes, users can benefit from manually
> >   converting between HTML and HAML from the command-line. If used so,
> >   and being a bit overzealous on Policy 10.4, users should not care
> >   what language it is implemented in - So the package could just be
> >   called 'haml', not 'ruby-haml'.
> > 
> > - Does it have both? It can/should(?) be split into just the libraries
> >   (libhaml-ruby) and the executables (haml, which incidentally happens
> >   to be implemented in Ruby).
> Regarding library-only packages (an example is nokogiri), I think that
> we should go for binary package ruby-nokogiri, for various reasons given
> in that thread, and I think that the consensus is against keeping the
> current lib.*-ruby naming convention.
> Now, there are more problems to solve:
> 1) organization of binary packages for source packages that mix
> libraries and applications
> If the main use of the software is as a library, and the binaries are
> only there as support, it makes sense to stick with ruby-*.
> If, instead, the main use is as application, we could drop "ruby-".
> And if unsure, ask the list ;)
> That would result in packages named:
> chef
> rails
> rubygems
> puppet
> ..
> Useless splits with several binary packages should be avoided. For
> example, if shipping the binary with the library adds less than 20% to
> the size of the library package, the packages should be merged.

Just wanted to point out that if we replace "ruby-*" with "lib*-ruby" in
the above, that is already our de facto practice; it is nice to
explictly standardize on it.

> 2) naming of source packages
> I think that we should get rid of lib.*-ruby source packages, even if
> that means slightly more work for us.
> And to replace them, I think that packages should be named the same as
> the main binary package for the package. So ruby-*, or directly "chef",
> "puppet", etc.

Agreed to.

Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@softwarelivre.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: