On 08/04/09 at 11:30 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > > [D] Ruby library source package naming policy. New source packages > > should be named ruby-xxxx, with xxxx being the name of the library. > > Of course, there are lots of special cases here, and there might > > be better names for the source package name of some libraries. > > I don't have a strong preference for current libxxxx-ruby scheme over > this one or otherwise, although moving everything to ruby-xxxx will > require dependency information to be updated all over the archive, > while leaving libxxxx-ruby could leave them all valid. Why are you > proposing this change? > > > Existing Ruby libraries can either change name (and adopt the > > ruby-xxxx naming) or keep their existing name. > > I understand this is to ease the pain - but it gets us to an > inconsistent state. I'd rather encourage people to do the naming > switch if one is to happen, if for nothing else, to keep users from > having two naming variations to search on.
The [D] point of the policy was for source packages, not binary packages. The point is to provide a sane default choice (ruby-xxx) for new packages. For existing packages, I don't really care about what is done, and having different naming schemes for source packages doesn't sound too harmful (it's already the case). But having new source packages named libxxx-ruby, while their binary packages will be named ruby(|xxx)-xxx, doesn't sound like a good idea. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [email protected] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
