[aur-general] Remove a few packages

[Maxime Gauduin]

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Maxime Gauduin <alucryd at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> 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
>

Also we add python in all cases to differentiate python 2 and python 3,
there is no such problem with ruby...

-- 
Maxime