(Dear Ruby team, there is a question below directed at you -- sorry for cross-posting.)
Hi, On 20-02-12 18:28:39, Gabriel Filion wrote: > I'm planning on sending in three more soonish: tty-screen, tty-reader > and tty-prompt. All uploaded to NEW. > Some more might actually also be kind of easy but I'll have to > confirm/discuss the package names with the ruby team wrt the presence > of a shipped cli script/"binary". What's the question here, specifically? "What name should be used, if a Ruby lib ships a binary"? If so, I'm not sure there is a general team policy on this. I guess the current practice looks something like "if the lib is mainly a lib, ruby-$foo is used, if it's more an application, it should be $foo". > one of the remaining ones might get a wee bit tricky: > > >> |-> ruby-spdx-licenses -> *not present* in debian. must package > > this thing ships a json file that was taken from spdx.org, so we'll > have to make sure to find the appropriate licence for this file. > > I *think* from what I could find on spdx.org that the file is covered > by CC-BY-SA 3.0 > > but then, I'm not sure if using the name "SPDX" in the package name > and description requires the use of a mention of the registered > trademark on the name. I'm by no means an expert on all this licensing stuff, but the above sounds painful. I'm wondering, if we really need this one, or a able to patch it trivially and drop it. I didn't check the code, yet, for this. Cheers, Georg _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
