On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:10:44AM +0000, Mateusz Loskot wrote:

On 26 March 2013 08:21, Ike Devolder <ike.devolder@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 09:52:40PM +0000, Mateusz Loskot wrote:

...

I can't find anything in the AUR guidelines article about recommended naming convention for packages. Apart, from the brief paragraph here https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_Packaging_Standards#Package_naming

I stumbled upon two packages that make me wonder about that:

1) https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/gist-git/ installs straight from repo and, by convention, uses -git suffix

2) https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/ruby-jist/ installs from Ruby gem

Am I right the latter should be named just jist and jist-git for version of the package installing form git?

Or, is the ruby- prefix recommended here? Or, the former should be actually named ruby-gist-git?

There is another one, same kind of tool but implemented in Python:

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pygist-git/

What, if any, is the naming policy in such cases?

I sense, it those packages should be named after software they provide:

https://github.com/defunkt/gist -> gist and gist-git https://github.com/ConradIrwin/jist -> jist and jist-git https://github.com/mattikus/pygist -> pygist and pygist-git

Their implementation language is displayed in dependencies.

normally we have a convention about libs:

example: python2-yenc (this is not a standalone app but a lib that might be needed for apps)

Right, that makes perfect sense.

...

in the case of an application, for example depending on python2 the recommended way of packaging is just use the application name.

example sabnzbd (depends on python2, is written in python but is an application, not a lib)

so i would say your naming scheme is correct.

Thanks, I'll suggest to rename ruby-jist to jist.

Best regards, -- Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net

Someone did it but did notify it here. so you know it is done thx -- Ike