[aur-general] Remove a few packages

[Jerome Leclanche]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
> 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