Re: Ruby packaging in wheezy: gem2deb, new policy, etc.
On 19/01/11 at 12:56 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:27:22PM +0100]:
> > > Heh, not the first time you push that way :)
> > >
> > > Still, I think the libfoo-ruby makes more sense when we are talking
> > > about libraries. If an unexperienced user sees (picking a random
> > > package of mine) a package called 'ruby-barby', with a slightly less
> > > explicit description to what I have now (say, 'Barcode generation
> > > tools'), he will probably install it and expect an application. Having
> > > it called 'libbarby-ruby' makes it explicit it is a Ruby library. Of
> > > course, the frameworks and applications should not follow this naming
> > > scheme (as they are not just Ruby libraries).
> >
> > Except that we have some libfoo-ruby that ship binaries (it was the case
> > for libgems-ruby, it's the case for librest-client-ruby). That causes
> > a lot of confusion for the users, too.
>
> 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).
My point was that calling the packages ruby-foo doesn't make it sound like
it's a library, so it's a bit less shocking to have exectables in them.
- Lucas
Reply to: