On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Anatol Pomozov <[email protected]>wrote:
> Hi > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Maxime Gauduin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Maxime Gauduin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>> > >>> The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the > package > >>>>> name should be 'ruby-$gemname'. The question should go to upstream > >>>>> developers - why do they use "ruby" prefix in their gem names if the > >>>>> gems are for ruby only anyway. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> Well, sometimes upstream is wrong, it does not mean we should follow > them > >>>> blindly. > >>>> > >>> > >>> The project name is "Ruby/SDL", and gem name is "rubysdl". We should > not > >>> say the upstream is wrong - there's no place to be right or wrong here. > >>> It's how they named the library and we should respect this. > >>> > >>> There is no "sdl" gem in rubygems.org repo, so anyone can upload a gem > >>> by that name at any time. "ruby-sdl" in AUR should be reserved to > "sdl" gem > >>> only, so I agree with anatolik (OP). > >>> > >>> But this is just an ideological argument... Practically, anatolik is a > >>> maintainer of ruby-sdl and his gems in AUR follow his own guideline of > >>> ruby-$gemname. [1] This is also an official guideline. [2] Although > these > >>> guidelines have recently been edited by anatolik, the very first > version of > >>> these guidelines [2] also say the naming convention is ruby-$gemname. > >>> Therefore, anatolik shouldn't be denied the package rename/merge > regardless > >>> of anyone finding the package name silly. ;-) > >>> > >>> [1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=anatolik&SeB=m&O=250&PP=50 > >>> [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ruby_Gem_Package_Guidelines > >>> [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Ruby_Gem_ > >>> Package_Guidelines&diff=64416&oldid=64415 > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kind regards, > >>> Damian Nowak > >>> StratusHost > >>> www.AtlasHost.eu > >>> > >> > >> This is no ideological argument, just common sense. Say you have a dog, > >> would you call it dog-doggy? Sounds ridiculous right? Why would you > call a > >> ruby package ruby-rubylib then? > >> > >> FYI, other distros offering this package call it 'ruby-sdl' [1]. > >> > >> You also seem to forget that the AUR is managed by TUs and they have the > >> final say. Mind you, I'm not abusing my status here, if other TU think > I'm > >> in the wrong, I'll gladly sit by idly and ignore atrocious names like > >> ruby-ruby-protocol-buffers (from the wiki page). I for one do not > approve > >> of the naming guideline, 'ruby-' should only be prepended to libraries > when > >> it makes sense, and versions should be appended without the leading > hyphen, > >> as you can find in the official repos [2]. > >> > >> > >> [1] http://pkgs.org/search/?query=ruby-sdl&type=smart > >> [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/wxgtk2.8/ > >> > >> -- > >> Maxime > >> > > > > Oh, as for someone uploading a sdl gem, although higly unlikely, could > be a > > rewrite of the current implementation. Then, and only then, > 'ruby-rubysdl' > > could be justified. > > I created a thread called "Ruby gem packages in Arch" please continue > discussion there. I've put my arguments in the first message > 1) avoid name collisions > Who in their right mind would upload foo and ruby-foo and/or rubyfoo on rubygems.org at the same time? Say someone did, I now know for a fact it's possible because people seem to consider it, even then, how often will you face this case, 2, maybe 3 times? I'm not sure adding a few exceptions in a script is that hard. > 2) make ruby packages maintenance more scriptable > If you can't be bothered, why not use rubygem directly? That said, sth along the lines: IF application THEN strip '^ruby-' from $gemname (keep ruby if there's no hyphen, as in rubyripper for example) ELSE strip '^ruby' or '^ruby-' then prepend 'ruby-' to $gemname Add to this a fairly simple list of gems which are actually applications and BAM, there is your script. BTW, seems like pretty basic script stuff to me. > > If nobody wants to merge 'ruby-sdl' then I am fine, I'll just disown > it and let somebody else maintain it. > Why start a discussion then, if your answer to "I don't agree with you" is "Fine, still I'll do what I want and make AUR even more of a joke than it already is by having duplicate crap and ridiculous names"? Anyway, have fun doing as you please, I'm not starting a one-man crusade here, I have more important stuff to do. Cheers, -- Maxime
