On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Josef Stribny wrote:
>
> What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
> rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
>
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
On 10/30/2013 01:41 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
And how vagrant differs from rhc and other client command line tools
that are distributed as gems and follow this convention?
What I would like to see in both rhc and vagrant would be:
Provides: rhc
respectively
Provides: vagrant
It feels natural
What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/vagrant
http://packages.debian.org/stable/vagr
Dne 30.10.2013 13:23, Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Josef Stribny wrote:
On 10/30/2013 10:45 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
>> And how vagrant differs from rhc and other client command line tools
>> that are distributed as gems and follow this convention?
>
> What I would like to see in both rhc and vagrant would be:
>
> Provides: rhc
>
> respectively
>
> Provides:
> And how vagrant differs from rhc and other client command line tools
> that are distributed as gems and follow this convention?
What I would like to see in both rhc and vagrant would be:
Provides: rhc
respectively
Provides: vagrant
It feels natural to me, I have issued "yum install rhc" seve
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Josef Stribny wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 10:45 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>>
>> What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
>> rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packagi
On 10/30/2013 10:45 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/v
What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/vagrant
http://packages.debian.org/stable/vagrant
M
On 30/10/13 09:16, Josef Stribny wrote:
yes, according to guidelines[1], it should be named rubygem-vagrant
since it's convention for all RubyGems.
Is vagrant not an "Application package that mainly provides user-level
tools that happen to be written in Ruby" though? In which case by the
thi
On 10/29/2013 02:13 PM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
Hi,
I'm on the CC list of the review request for rubygem-vagrant [1] and
randomly found a new review request for vagrant [2]. The two packages
are AFAICT the same, and the former is stalled due to missing
dependencies, the last one being rubygem-l
Hi,
I'm on the CC list of the review request for rubygem-vagrant [1] and
randomly found a new review request for vagrant [2]. The two packages
are AFAICT the same, and the former is stalled due to missing
dependencies, the last one being rubygem-log4r [3].
Ironically, the two submitters (CC'ed) m
12 matches
Mail list logo
