Naming of source packages (Was: [Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers] rcairo -- Cairo bindings for Ruby)

[Thierry Reding]

* Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:08:55AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > * Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Thierry's proposal to join the team with rcairo makes me wonder about
> > > something : the naming of our library source packages.
> > > Currently, we have two schemes in the Debian Ruby community :
> > > A. ruby-something (think of ruby-gnome2), rsomething (think of rcairo),
> > >    etc ... generally the same name as the upstream software.
> > > B. libsomething-ruby (think of xmpp4r -> libxmpp4r-ruby, ruby-feedparser
> > >    -> libfeedparser-ruby. yes, that's my packages)
> > > 
> > > Which one should we favor ? I personnally prefer (B), since it makes it
> > > easier to go from binary package to source package.
> > 
> > I personally prefer (A), since it keeps the names consistent with upstream.
> > Then again, having one consistent naming scheme for Ruby packages does make
> > sense, and if most packages already use (B) then I don't have any objections
> > to renaming rcairo to libcairo-ruby. Or would it have to be librcairo-ruby?
> 
>     I guess libcairo-ruby sounds better. I think the problem with the naming
> conventions is Ruby module names vs. Ruby packages, so to speak. I mean, it
> feels more natural (to me, anyway) to use libfoo-bar-ruby when upstream is
> called Foo::Bar or similar, and perhaps it seems more natural to name the
> package rfoo if upstream calls it Rfoo.

I agree, libcairo-ruby definitely sounds better. I was under the impression
that there was some sort of convention that the source package would use the
upstream name, and that binary packages would be named lib* (in case of Ruby
libraries lib*-ruby). That seems to have been a wrong impression, though.

>     But I think it's better sticking to a single convention (perhaps using
> metapackages, as gnome-ruby, in the case of "Ruby packages"; in that case, I
> would use the most similar name to upstream, instead of having a second
> convention), and I prefer (B), as I already said.

I've been browsing the mailing list archives of debian-ruby, and found a link
to a draft of a policy for Ruby packaging. Is there any news about this? It
also suggests the libfoo-bar-ruby model.

Cheers,
Thierry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20051219/bc21d695/attachment.pgp