On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Maxime Gauduin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
Maxime, if I were you I would avoid trying to outsmart upstream. Otherwise you end up in the same situation as python currently is in. Upstream packages are commonly called %s or python-%s or py%s. In any of those cases, they are often imported as %s or py%s. Arch Linux disregards duplications and simply calls *all* packages python-%s. This makes the most sense and Anatol is trying to follow the same naming rule which is very sensible. J. Leclanche
