On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:

Hi

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

...

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:

...

Hi,

Please remove a number of unused versioned packages:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-fog-1.15/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-celluloid-0.14.1/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-celluloid-io-0.14.1/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-coderay-1.0.5/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-equalizer-0.0.7/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-excon-0.25.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-github_api-0.10.1/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-gssapi-1.0.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-httpi-0.9.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-mime-types-1.16/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-minitar-0.5.4/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-mixlib-config-1.1.2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-moneta-0.6.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-multipart-post-1.2.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-net-ssh-multi-1.1.2/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-nori-1.0.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-puma-1.6.3/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-ridley-1.5.3/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rubyntlm-0.1.1/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-wasabi-1.0.0/

Incorrectly named packages that should be removed as well:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-digital-ocean/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-exception-notification/

All nuked.

Thanks. A few more that I missed

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-excon-0.25/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-fog-1.15.0/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-memoizable-0.2/

...

...

please merge https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-sdl/ into https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-rubysdl/

What's the rationale behind this change? ruby-sdl is perfectly fine, ruby-rubysdl is just silly imho.

The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the package 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 them blindly. It is redundant if used on rubygems.org indeed, and it is that much more if we add another 'ruby-' on top of it. 'ruby-$gemname' is a guideline, not an absolute rule, there's no point applying it if your brain tells you it makes a redundant and silly package name. I'll be deleting 'ruby-rubysdl', you should keep 'ruby-sdl'. BTW, speaking about $gemname, that variable is useless in most ruby packages, just use ${pkgname#*-}, the less variables, the better. Cheers, -- Maxime

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker wrote:

Hey,

The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the package

...

...

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 them

...

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-$gemname. [1] This is also an official guideline. [2] Although these guidelines have recently been edited by anatolik, the very first version of these guidelines [2] also say the naming convention is ruby-$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

Hi On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

...

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker wrote:

...

Hey,

The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the package

...

...

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 them

...

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-$gemname. [1] This is also an official guideline. [2] Although these guidelines have recently been edited by anatolik, the very first version of these guidelines [2] also say the naming convention is ruby-$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 2) make ruby packages maintenance more scriptable If nobody wants to merge 'ruby-sdl' then I am fine, I'll just disown it and let somebody else maintain it.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:

...

Hi

...

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

...

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker 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 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

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Jerome Leclanche 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 wrote:

...

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker

wrote:

...

> Hey, > > > The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Maxime Gauduin wrote: package

...

...

>>> name should be 'ruby-$gemname'. The question should go to upstream >>> developers - why do they use "ruby" prefix in their gem names if

...

...

...

...

>>> gems are for ruby only anyway. >>> >> > Well, sometimes upstream is wrong, it does not mean we should follow them >> 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-$gemname. [1] This is also an official guideline. [2] Although these > guidelines have recently been edited by anatolik, the very first version of > these guidelines [2] also say the naming convention is ruby-$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

...

...

I'm

...

...

in the wrong, I'll gladly sit by idly and ignore atrocious names

...

...

...

...

ruby-ruby-protocol-buffers (from the wiki page). I for one do not approve of the naming guideline, 'ruby-' should only be prepended to

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote: the think like 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

Except I don't remember ever seeing a python-python-pyfoo in our repos...

-- Maxime

Also we add python in all cases to differentiate python 2 and python 3, there is no such problem with ruby... -- Maxime

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dave Reisner wrote:

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:30:01PM +0100, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

...

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:

...

Except I don't remember ever seeing a python-python-pyfoo in our repos...

We would, if python-pyfoo was the name of an upstream project.

...

...

-- Maxime

Also we add python in all cases to differentiate python 2 and python 3, there is no such problem with ruby...

No, we add a python- prefix because that's our packaging guidelines for language specific packages. The fact that ruby has no divergent branch which requires separate packaging is irrelevant.

The upstream project is called ruby/sdl. The gem is called rubysdl. It seems to me that ruby-rubysdl is the correct name, even if it seems to be redundant.

I've merged ruby-sdl into ruby-rubysdl.

Fine, that call is not mine only anyway, I'll back off as promised since it appears I'm the only one to be bothered by this. I still think it is overly redundant, and like I pointed earlier, other distros like debian do too. And with that I'm out. Cheers, -- Maxime