[aur-general] Remove a few packages

Maxime Gauduin alucryd at gmail.com
Mon Jan 20 15:22:14 EST 2014


On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Jerome Leclanche <adys.wh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>

Except I don't remember ever seeing a python-python-pyfoo in our repos...

-- 
Maxime


More information about the aur-general mailing list