On 26 March 2013 08:21, Ike Devolder <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 09:52:40PM +0000, Mateusz Loskot wrote: >> >> I can't find anything in the AUR guidelines article about >> recommended naming convention for packages. >> Apart, from the brief paragraph here >> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_naming >> >> I stumbled upon two packages that make me wonder about that: >> >> 1) https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gist-git/ >> installs straight from repo and, by convention, uses -git suffix >> >> 2) https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-jist/ >> installs from Ruby gem >> >> Am I right the latter should be named just jist >> and jist-git for version of the package installing form git? >> >> Or, is the ruby- prefix recommended here? >> Or, the former should be actually named ruby-gist-git? >> >> There is another one, same kind of tool but implemented in Python: >> >> https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pygist-git/ >> >> What, if any, is the naming policy in such cases? >> >> I sense, it those packages should be named after software >> they provide: >> >> https://github.com/defunkt/gist -> gist and gist-git >> https://github.com/ConradIrwin/jist -> jist and jist-git >> https://github.com/mattikus/pygist -> pygist and pygist-git >> >> Their implementation language is displayed in dependencies. > > normally we have a convention about libs: > > example: python2-yenc (this is not a standalone app but a lib that might > be needed for apps)
Right, that makes perfect sense. > in the case of an application, for example depending on python2 the > recommended way of packaging is just use the application name. > > example sabnzbd (depends on python2, is written in python but is an > application, not a lib) > > so i would say your naming scheme is correct. Thanks, I'll suggest to rename ruby-jist to jist. Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
