[aur-general] Package Removal Request: yajl-ruby, redcloth
yajl-ruby and redcloth are two of the packages I maintain currently. To follow the package naming conventions, I'd like to prefix both pkgnames with ruby-. I've already submitted/adopted the new packages to AUR, so here's for removing the yajl-ruby and redcloth packages. Sorry for any inconvenience.
On 20 April 2011 14:23, talki walki <lolilolicon@gmail.com> wrote:
yajl-ruby and redcloth are two of the packages I maintain currently.
To follow the package naming conventions, I'd like to prefix both pkgnames with ruby-. I've already submitted/adopted the new packages to AUR, so here's for removing the yajl-ruby and redcloth packages.
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.
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. 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. Is there a documentation on this package naming convention?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 7:54 PM, talki walki <lolilolicon@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there a documentation on this package naming convention?
Never mind, I found it here: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ruby_Gem_Package_Guidelines pkgname=ruby-GEMNAME # All lowercase
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.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@gmail.com> wrote:
and there is ruby-sqlite3 which is actively maintained.
Oops, I missed it, sorry. OK, I followed kidoz/bash and renamed my package to ruby-yajl... But wait... I double checked: ruby-sqlite3 is actually different from ${ruby-,}sqlite3-ruby: ruby-sqlite3: http://rubygems.org/gems/sqlite3 sqlite3-ruby: http://rubygems.org/gems/sqlite3-ruby I don't think these two gems are the same one. This is a good real world proof why for gem `yajl-ruby', `ruby-yajl-ruby' is the correct name, and sqlite3-ruby should be ruby-sqlite3-ruby. Now please remove ruby-yajl...
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 20:57:55 +0800, talki walki wrote:
But wait... I double checked: ruby-sqlite3 is actually different from ${ruby-,}sqlite3-ruby:
ruby-sqlite3: http://rubygems.org/gems/sqlite3 sqlite3-ruby: http://rubygems.org/gems/sqlite3-ruby
That's the same gem, and a duplicate on RubyGems. Moreover you require "yajl" or "sqlite3", not "yajl-ruby" or "sqlite3-ruby". So I'm for "ruby-yajl". -- Pierre 'catwell' Chapuis
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Pierre Chapuis <catwell@archlinux.us> wrote:
Moreover you require "yajl" or "sqlite3", not "yajl-ruby" or "sqlite3-ruby". So I'm for "ruby-yajl".
OK, that's a point. 2 to 1, I give in. Now please remove ruby-yajl-ruby, Foutras.
On 20 April 2011 16:23, talki walki <lolilolicon@gmail.com> wrote:
Now please remove ruby-yajl-ruby, Foutras.
Done, cheers.
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM, talki walki <lolilolicon@gmail.com> wrote:
ruby-sqlite3: http://rubygems.org/gems/sqlite3 sqlite3-ruby: http://rubygems.org/gems/sqlite3-ruby
I don't think these two gems are the same one.
Sorry for double posting again... For the sake of completeness: I checked the AUR comments of ruby-sqlite3 and found this:
'sqlite3-ruby' is now an empty placeholder gem that depends on 'sqlite3'.
Nevertheless, I still believe a gem named `foo-ruby' can be completely different from a gem named `foo'. The convention should not make an exception just for gems with a -ruby suffix.
participants (3)
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Pierre Chapuis
-
talki walki