On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker <enwukaer@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey,
The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the
> name should be 'ruby-$gemname'. The question should go to upstream > developers - why do they use "ruby" prefix in their gem names if the > gems are for ruby only anyway. >
Well, sometimes upstream is wrong, it does not mean we should follow
blindly.
The project name is "Ruby/SDL", and gem name is "rubysdl". We should not say the upstream is wrong - there's no place to be right or wrong here. It's how they named the library and we should respect this.
There is no "sdl" gem in rubygems.org repo, so anyone can upload a gem by that name at any time. "ruby-sdl" in AUR should be reserved to "sdl" gem only, so I agree with anatolik (OP).
But this is just an ideological argument... Practically, anatolik is a maintainer of ruby-sdl and his gems in AUR follow his own guideline of ruby-$gemname. [1] This is also an official guideline. [2] Although
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd@gmail.com> wrote: package them these
guidelines have recently been edited by anatolik, the very first version of these guidelines [2] also say the naming convention is ruby-$gemname. Therefore, anatolik shouldn't be denied the package rename/merge regardless of anyone finding the package name silly. ;-)
[1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=anatolik&SeB=m&O=250&PP=50 [2]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ruby_Gem_Package_Guidelines [3]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Ruby_Gem_ Package_Guidelines&diff=64416&oldid=64415
-- Kind regards, Damian Nowak StratusHost www.AtlasHost.eu
This is no ideological argument, just common sense. Say you have a dog, would you call it dog-doggy? Sounds ridiculous right? Why would you call a ruby package ruby-rubylib then?
FYI, other distros offering this package call it 'ruby-sdl' [1].
You also seem to forget that the AUR is managed by TUs and they have the final say. Mind you, I'm not abusing my status here, if other TU think I'm in the wrong, I'll gladly sit by idly and ignore atrocious names like ruby-ruby-protocol-buffers (from the wiki page). I for one do not approve of the naming guideline, 'ruby-' should only be prepended to libraries when it makes sense, and versions should be appended without the leading hyphen, as you can find in the official repos [2].
[1] http://pkgs.org/search/?query=ruby-sdl&type=smart [2] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/wxgtk2.8/
-- Maxime
Oh, as for someone uploading a sdl gem, although higly unlikely, could be a rewrite of the current implementation. Then, and only then, 'ruby-rubysdl' could be justified.
I created a thread called "Ruby gem packages in Arch" please continue discussion there. I've put my arguments in the first message 1) avoid name collisions
Who in their right mind would upload foo and ruby-foo and/or rubyfoo on rubygems.org at the same time? Say someone did, I now know for a fact it's possible because people seem to consider it, even then, how often will you face this case, 2, maybe 3 times? I'm not sure adding a few exceptions in a script is that hard.
2) make ruby packages maintenance more scriptable
If you can't be bothered, why not use rubygem directly?
That said, sth along the lines:
IF application THEN strip '^ruby-' from $gemname (keep ruby if there's no hyphen, as in rubyripper for example) ELSE strip '^ruby' or '^ruby-' then prepend 'ruby-' to $gemname
Add to this a fairly simple list of gems which are actually applications and BAM, there is your script. BTW, seems like pretty basic script stuff to me.
If nobody wants to merge 'ruby-sdl' then I am fine, I'll just disown it and let somebody else maintain it.
Why start a discussion then, if your answer to "I don't agree with you" is "Fine, still I'll do what I want and make AUR even more of a joke than it already is by having duplicate crap and ridiculous names"?
Anyway, have fun doing as you please, I'm not starting a one-man crusade here, I have more important stuff to do.
Cheers, -- Maxime
Maxime, if I were you I would avoid trying to outsmart upstream. Otherwise you end up in the same situation as python currently is in. Upstream packages are commonly called %s or python-%s or py%s. In any of those cases, they are often imported as %s or py%s. Arch Linux disregards duplications and simply calls *all* packages python-%s. This makes the most sense and Anatol is trying to follow the same naming rule which is very sensible. J. Leclanche