Hi, I'm resurecting this subthread to discuss the naming of packages.
On 19/01/11 at 12:56 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > Agree. And maybe it's overkill to separate just the library from an > eight line long program (the case of haml, sass, html2haml, css2sass, > ...) to keep things clean. But OTOH, here it would be worth analyzing > what are we aiming at with each individual package - I picked > libhaml-ruby as an example, so: > > - Is it a library? If so, it deservers having the 'ruby' particle in > the name. And IMO it benefits from being ^lib, as it is clearer > > - Is it an application? Yes, users can benefit from manually > converting between HTML and HAML from the command-line. If used so, > and being a bit overzealous on Policy 10.4, users should not care > what language it is implemented in - So the package could just be > called 'haml', not 'ruby-haml'. > > - Does it have both? It can/should(?) be split into just the libraries > (libhaml-ruby) and the executables (haml, which incidentally happens > to be implemented in Ruby). Regarding library-only packages (an example is nokogiri), I think that we should go for binary package ruby-nokogiri, for various reasons given in that thread, and I think that the consensus is against keeping the current lib.*-ruby naming convention. Now, there are more problems to solve: 1) organization of binary packages for source packages that mix libraries and applications If the main use of the software is as a library, and the binaries are only there as support, it makes sense to stick with ruby-*. If, instead, the main use is as application, we could drop "ruby-". And if unsure, ask the list ;) That would result in packages named: chef rails rubygems puppet ... Useless splits with several binary packages should be avoided. For example, if shipping the binary with the library adds less than 20% to the size of the library package, the packages should be merged. 2) naming of source packages I think that we should get rid of lib.*-ruby source packages, even if that means slightly more work for us. And to replace them, I think that packages should be named the same as the main binary package for the package. So ruby-*, or directly "chef", "puppet", etc. Comments? I *think* that those are the last points to discuss before we can send the wiki page to debian-devel@ and ask for comments. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
