On 11/04/09 at 13:27 -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > 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.
ruby-xxx looks nicer than libxxx-ruby IMHO, and often matches upstream's naming. At least much more than libxxx-ruby. I tried to get an idea of how many packages are affected. Here are some numbers. There are 213 source packages building packages matching /ruby/. 93 are arch:any, 120 are arch:all. Of the 120 arch:all packages, only 7 source packages build packages that don't match /ruby/, and all of them are false positives (an example is samizdat, which builds samizdat, libsamizdat-ruby, libsamizdat-ruby1.8). Of the 93 arch:any packages, 27 source packages build packages that don't match /ruby/. (an example is xapian-bindings, which builds tclxapian, libxapian-ruby1.8, python-xapian, php5-xapian). Those are the "highest nuisance" ones. Now, what about renaming? if we move away from libxxx-ruby and switch to ruby-xxx, there are other packages that will require changes (those with deps on ruby packages). 130 packages have Depends, Recommends or Suggests on ruby packages. Of those, 61 packages won't be affected by another change, so they would only need to be changed because of the renaming. Since apparently, there are more people thinking that we should not do the renaming, than people thinking that we should go ahead, let's not do it. It only means that tracking which packages still need changes will be slightly more difficult. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ruby-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
