On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Jerome Leclanche <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > Except I don't remember ever seeing a python-python-pyfoo in our repos... -- Maxime
