On 20/07/09 at 23:12 +0200, Laurent Vallar wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Mon,Jul,20,2009, Paul van Tilburg wrote: > > [...] > > If a lib is called libfoo-ruby, one always has to wonder whether the > > source package is libfoo-ruby, foo-ruby, ruby-foo, rfoo, foo4r, etc. > > I know one can do some queries to find out the source package, but as > > packager I'd like the consisting naming. > > > > Why do I bring this up now? Well, because it's easy to rename > > source packages before the first upload. Let me know if anyone > > disagrees with the old convention, I'm sure we can work it out. > > [...] > > You're right, the first try was a package called 'sinatra'. But after > reading latest Candidate new Ruby policy (v2) from Lucas, i changed the > target names. > > cf. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2009/04/msg00023.html
I think that what Paul means is that he would prefer the source package name to be libsinatra-ruby, not just sinatra. I don't have a preference for one or the other solution. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [email protected] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [email protected] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | _______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
