On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 01:41:37PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > > > On 2020, മാർച്ച് 12 7:58:34 PM IST, Antonio Terceiro <terce...@debian.org> > wrote: > >On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 07:05:42PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote: > >> On 2020, മാർച്ച് 12 12:28:52 AM IST, Kiran Skunjumon > ><kiranskunjumo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >their is two gem parser and ruby_parser. > >> >In debian ruby_parser is packaged under ruby-parser instead of > >> >ruby-ruby-parser. > >> >parser is a dependency of unparser . > >> >now i am stuck > >> > >> I think we can use the github username (like we did earlier and a > >common practice for forks) to create a unique name for the new package. > >So we can package parser gem as ruby-whitequark-parser. > > > >In this case it's not really a fork, it's a problem with our naming > >convention. We should stop making exceptions for gems whose names > >start > >with "ruby[-_]*, and make ruby_foo become ruby-ruby-foo, not just > >ruby-foo. > > > >IMO it would be better to fix the name of existing package now instead > >of postponing this. It would be > > > >- rename ruby-parser to ruby-ruby-parser > > > >- introduce parser as ruby-parser, adding Breaks: against versions of > > the packages that currently dependend on ruby-parser wanting the > > "ruby_parser" gem. > > > > $ reverse-depends ruby-parser > > Reverse-Depends > > * gitlab > > * obs-api > > * roodi > > * ruby-html2haml > > * ruby-ruby2ruby > > > > Those packages would need to be adjusted to depend on ruby-ruby-parser > > instead. > > OK I'll start with renaming ruby-parser to ruby-ruby-parser and follow the > steps once it is accepted in the archive.
cool, thanks FWIW yesterday I committed a change to gem2deb to drop this exception for "ruby" in gem names: https://deb.li/41zI
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
