Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Josef Stribny
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Josef Stribny
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Vít Ondruch
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 ?

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
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:

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Lukas Zapletal
> 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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Josef Stribny
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Tom Hughes
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

Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-30 Thread Josef Stribny
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

Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant

2013-10-29 Thread Dridi Boukelmoune
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