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> http://softwarelivre.org/terceiro
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature