On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Maxime Gauduin <aluc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Nowaker <enwuk...@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. -- Maxime