Re: confirming some package names before creating them (was Re: [Pkg-puppet-devel] in need of a little help for packaing puppet development kit with all dependencies)
Thanks for the feedback, Georg, I've sent the last remaining ITPs today and I'll try and get most of the remaining packages together soon. On 2020-02-24 8:48 p.m., Georg Faerber wrote: > 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. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: confirming some package names before creating them (was Re: [Pkg-puppet-devel] in need of a little help for packaing puppet development kit with all dependencies)
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
confirming some package names before creating them (was Re: [Pkg-puppet-devel] in need of a little help for packaing puppet development kit with all dependencies)
Hello Ruby Team, [redirecting the discussion only to the ruby team since it has more to do with this team's policies since I intend to manage as much as possible ruby packages within this team] I was intending to send an email to the team specifically for these questions, so here goes: On 2020-02-13 6:52 p.m., Georg Faerber wrote: >> Some more might actually also be kind of easy but I'll have to >> confirm/discuss the package names with the ruby team wrt the presence >> of a shipped cli script/"binary". > What's the question here, specifically? "What name should be used, if a > Ruby lib ships a binary"? most of my questions smell like this, yes. so they should be pretty easy to clear up :) I do have one that might be a bit more spikey about licensing. I'll send this one in another email. > If so, I'm not sure there is a general team > policy on this. I guess the current practice looks something like "if > the lib is mainly a lib, ruby-$foo is used, if it's more an application, > it should be $foo". ^ right, that's what I remember reading on the Ruby Team's wiki page. 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 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? * 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? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
