On 20 April 2011 14:54, talki walki <lolilolicon@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
I removed both packages. However, ruby-yajl (without the -ruby suffix) would be a better name for the first package. If you want, go ahead and re-upload it under the new name, and reply here to delete ruby-yajl-ruby.
I named it ruby-yajl-ruby because I was assuming the convention to be ruby-{gemname}. A quick query for "ruby-%-ruby" returns another package that's thus named: ruby-sqlite3-ruby. There's also another package named sqlite3-ruby in AUR, but there's no ruby-sqlite3.
I just deleted ruby-sqlite3-ruby; it was an outdated orphan, and there is ruby-sqlite3 which is actively maintained. (Now only your package is named like that. :>)
Although ruby-yajl-ruby looks a bit redundant, I personally consider it the correct naming in principle. As such, for the sqlite3-ruby gem, the correct package name is ruby-sqlite3-ruby.
I see your point, but I strongly believe the -ruby suffix should be removed.