Bug#722362: Updating the Ruby packaging policy for your package «libroot-bindings-ruby5.34»

[Caitlin Matos]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:55:46 -0500 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf at debian.org> wrote:
> Package: libroot-bindings-ruby5.34
> Severity: normal
> Usertags: ruby18-removal, update-ruby-policy
>
> Hi Debian Science Maintainers,
>
> As you may know, during the Wheezy release cycle, the pkg-ruby-extras
> team¹ has worked to update the Ruby libraries/modules/gems packages to
> follow a new policy, much easier for the maintainers (as we no longer
> require a separate package for each interpreter version), to the
> archive (as it strongly reduces code duplication), and much more
> sensical to the users (as they no longer require to fiddle with which
> among many almost-identical binary packages to install).
>
> While we achieved a quite good success level during the Wheezy cycle²,
> we decided to act only on the packages maintained by the group — There
> are many Ruby library packages maintained by kind people (like
> yourself!) which have not yet adopted this new style. According to our
> records, you are currently maintaining the package:
>
>   libroot-bindings-ruby5.34
>
> I am sending this report as part of a mass-bug-filing.³ Some useful
> information you might find useful:
>
> • Guidelines for Ruby packaging⁴
>
>   https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging#Guidelines_for_Ruby_packaging
>
> • Ruby team release goals for Jessie⁵
>
>   https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Jessie
>
> • About the Ruby team — Please consider joining!⁶
>
>   https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby
>
> • Part of the new policy involves running the package's tests. Here is
>   a swift introduction on what it means and how to do it:
>
>   https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging/Tests
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your attention!
>
> --
>
> ¹ alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-ruby-extras/
>
> ² http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/wheezy/
>
> ³ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/09/msg00196.html
>

What would be the suggested name for the package?

Based on policy, it would be ruby-libruby ... not a great name.

Would ruby-root or ruby-root-bindings be acceptable?

Caitlin