Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 07:06:39PM +0200]: > > > Existing Ruby libraries can either change name (and adopt the > > > ruby-xxxx naming) or keep their existing name. > > > > I understand this is to ease the pain - but it gets us to an > > inconsistent state. I'd rather encourage people to do the naming > > switch if one is to happen, if for nothing else, to keep users from > > having two naming variations to search on. > > The [D] point of the policy was for source packages, not binary > packages. The point is to provide a sane default choice (ruby-xxx) for > new packages. For existing packages, I don't really care about what is > done, and having different naming schemes for source packages > doesn't sound too harmful (it's already the case). But having new source > packages named libxxx-ruby, while their binary packages will be named > ruby(|xxx)-xxx, doesn't sound like a good idea.
Umh... Still, why are you proposing the change from libxxx-ruby to ruby(|xxx)-xxx for (either source or binary) packages? I completely agree they should be consistently named, but libxxx-ruby is much more widespread nowadays. And I'd add that existing packages should be homogeneized as much as possible, even if it means going again through NEW. Greetings, -- Gunnar Wolf - gw...@gwolf.org - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23 Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
