Hi, On 20-02-15 19:15:34, Gabriel Filion wrote: > For the following, here's what I'm intending to choose as a package > name (ITPs still need to ben sent). I think these are more probably OK > to be named without the "ruby-" prefix: > > * jgrep > -> this one seems rather clear to me since the main script can be > used independantly on the CLI to process any JSON information > * facterdb > -> this one is usually mainly used as a library but it does ship a > main script that can be used for printing a set of information from the > library > * metadata-json-lint > -> same situation as facterdb: it's mainly used as a library but it > does ship a script for running checks on a file independently on the CLI
Let's go with these, then. > This one is a bit more tricky: > > * ruby-pathspec > -> it's mainly used as a lib but it does ship a script for testing > values on the CLI. > * I've already sent an ITP for "ruby-pathspec" before I realized it > was shipping a script. So if I need to change the name, I'll just need > to know how I can deal with the ITP bug report to avoid issues.. send a > bts command to re-title, or is there another manipulation necessary? That's the way to go, probably adding a small comment to the body of the mail to explain the name change. > * The script that's shipped is named "pathspec-rb" which differs from > the gem name "pathspec". Should the package take on the name of that > script, "pathspec-rb", even though the library itself is called > "pathspec"? it seems a bit confusing > * "pathspec" is pretty generic and refers to a concept in the git > codebase, so I would possibly tend to keep "ruby-pathspec" as the > package name. what do others think about this? Sounds good to me. Regarding the name of the script, in case this one gets installed into /usr/bin, I guess it makes sense to use the same name as well, as 'pathspec' is quite generic. Cheers, Georg
