[aur-general] Remove a few packages

[Anatol Pomozov]

Hi

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:06 AM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:
>>
>>> 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.