[aur-general] Remove a few packages
alucryd at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 10:06:04 EST 2014
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker <enwukaer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The gemname is 'rubysdl' http://rubygems.org/gems/rubysdl, the package
>>>> name should be 'ruby-$gemname'. The question should go to upstream
>>>> developers - why do they use "ruby" prefix in their gem names if the
>>>> gems are for ruby only anyway.
>> Well, sometimes upstream is wrong, it does not mean we should follow them
>> The project name is "Ruby/SDL", and gem name is "rubysdl". We should not
>> say the upstream is wrong - there's no place to be right or wrong here.
>> It's how they named the library and we should respect this.
>> There is no "sdl" gem in rubygems.org repo, so anyone can upload a gem
>> by that name at any time. "ruby-sdl" in AUR should be reserved to "sdl" gem
>> only, so I agree with anatolik (OP).
>> But this is just an ideological argument... Practically, anatolik is a
>> maintainer of ruby-sdl and his gems in AUR follow his own guideline of
>> ruby-$gemname.  This is also an official guideline.  Although these
>> guidelines have recently been edited by anatolik, the very first version of
>> these guidelines  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. ;-)
>> : https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?K=anatolik&SeB=m&O=250&PP=50
>> : https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Ruby_Gem_Package_Guidelines
>> : https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=Ruby_Gem_
>> Kind regards,
>> Damian Nowak
> 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' .
> 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 .
>  http://pkgs.org/search/?query=ruby-sdl&type=smart
>  https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/wxgtk2.8/
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.
More information about the aur-general