Hello Ruby Team, [redirecting the discussion only to the ruby team since it has more to do with this team's policies since I intend to manage as much as possible ruby packages within this team] I was intending to send an email to the team specifically for these questions, so here goes: On 2020-02-13 6:52 p.m., Georg Faerber wrote: >> Some more might actually also be kind of easy but I'll have to >> confirm/discuss the package names with the ruby team wrt the presence >> of a shipped cli script/"binary". > What's the question here, specifically? "What name should be used, if a > Ruby lib ships a binary"? most of my questions smell like this, yes. so they should be pretty easy to clear up :) I do have one that might be a bit more spikey about licensing. I'll send this one in another email. > If so, I'm not sure there is a general team > policy on this. I guess the current practice looks something like "if > the lib is mainly a lib, ruby-$foo is used, if it's more an application, > it should be $foo". ^ right, that's what I remember reading on the Ruby Team's wiki page. For the following, here's what I'm intending to choose as a package name (ITPs still need to ben sent). I think these are more probably OK to be named without the "ruby-" prefix: * jgrep -> this one seems rather clear to me since the main script can be used independantly on the CLI to process any JSON information * facterdb -> this one is usually mainly used as a library but it does ship a main script that can be used for printing a set of information from the library * metadata-json-lint -> same situation as facterdb: it's mainly used as a library but it does ship a script for running checks on a file independently on the CLI This one is a bit more tricky: * ruby-pathspec -> it's mainly used as a lib but it does ship a script for testing values on the CLI. * I've already sent an ITP for "ruby-pathspec" before I realized it was shipping a script. So if I need to change the name, I'll just need to know how I can deal with the ITP bug report to avoid issues.. send a bts command to re-title, or is there another manipulation necessary? * The script that's shipped is named "pathspec-rb" which differs from the gem name "pathspec". Should the package take on the name of that script, "pathspec-rb", even though the library itself is called "pathspec"? it seems a bit confusing * "pathspec" is pretty generic and refers to a concept in the git codebase, so I would possibly tend to keep "ruby-pathspec" as the package name. what do others think about this?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature