Thanks for the feedback, Georg, I've sent the last remaining ITPs today and I'll try and get most of the remaining packages together soon. On 2020-02-24 8:48 p.m., Georg Faerber wrote: > Hi, > > On 20-02-15 19:15:34, Gabriel Filion wrote: >> 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 > > Let's go with these, then. > >> 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? > > That's the way to go, probably adding a small comment to the body of the > mail to explain the name change. > >> * 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? > > Sounds good to me. Regarding the name of the script, in case this one > gets installed into /usr/bin, I guess it makes sense to use the same > name as well, as 'pathspec' is quite generic.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature