Re: gem package naming (was Re: [GitHub] Formatting fixed [ln/gem2deb GH-19])
On 10/04/11 at 16:21 +0100, David Greaves wrote:
> >>c) Define a hard rule on the gem->deb naming [1]
> >>David
> >>[1] eg what is yajl-ruby packaged as? gem2deb produces a ruby-yajl.deb today.
> >
> >The current rule is (from
> >http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/RubyInWheezy#Naming_of_ruby_packages):
> >- Binary packages must normally be named "ruby-foo". If the package is
> > mainly used as an application (not as a library), then it can be named
> > "foo". Known examples are rails, chef, rubygems, puppet.
> >- Source packages must have the same name as the "main" binary package.
> > (our infrastructure is better at handling this case)
> >
> >foo should normally what you "require" in a Ruby script. So, for
> >yajl-ruby, it makes sense to call it ruby-yajl.
>
> That makes complete sense to me as a designer.
>
> However I'm not sure how well it promotes the 'similarity to gem'.
> It certainly feels like it will become problematic.
>
> I understand that http://rubygems.org is the canonical source of gem
> naming so although it leads to one or two 'ugly' package names (like
> ruby-ruby-prof and ruby-yajl-ruby) it also makes it 100% predictable
> to go from gem->deb which helps both when packaging and when looking
> for a package when I've been told which gem to use.
>
> A quick look [1] shows:
>
> http://rubygems.org/gems/mysql
> http://rubygems.org/gems/ruby-mysql
>
> http://rubygems.org/gems/units
> http://rubygems.org/gems/ruby-units
>
> So whilst ruby-<require name> makes sense, ruby-<gem name> is only
> slightly less sensible and seems to offer significant non-technical
> benefits at the expense of some aesthetics in package names.
>
> PS A quick look in the archives didn't highlight this issue.
>
> David
>
> [1]
> http://rubygems.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=ruby-
> http://rubygems.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=-ruby
There's no work happening on the rubygems.org side to ensure that gems
have sane names. So I don't think that it's a justification to have
packages named ruby-foo-ruby, or ruby-ruby-foo.
- Lucas
Reply to: