Naming of source packages (Was: [Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers]
rcairo -- Cairo bindings for Ruby)
thierry at doppeltgemoppelt.de
Tue Dec 20 23:11:38 UTC 2005
* Paul van Tilburg wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 02:34:47PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > * Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
> > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 02:08:55AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > 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.
> Well it would not always be clear, too. I prefer the upstream package name
> to be changed to what the, well, meta-pkg is going to be named.
So, to summarize, there seems to be a more or less general consensus that
source packages should generally be named libfoo-ruby if upstream provides
the Ruby library 'foo'. Binary packages should have the same name.
That is unless the upstream package provides several libraries, in which case
the source package should take the same name as upstream and the separate
libraries would go into packages named according to the libfoo-ruby
convention mentioned above. In addition the source package should provide a
meta package depending on all the libraries that it provides.
> Also do I prefer lib<some lib>-ruby to correspond with: require "<some lib>"
> rather than systematically removing a "ruby" or "r" suffix or prefix. I
> mean, it's still libxmpp4r-ruby and that's good, because you do
> "require 'xmpp4r'" in the end.
If I've understood correctly, this should be covered by the summary above. To
be specific: rcairo provides only one library, 'cairo', so the source package
should be named libcairo-ruby, which generates one binary package named
For larger packages like ruby-gnome2, the source package would be called
'ruby-gnome2', while providing binary packages for the libraries it provides
(glib2 --> libglib2-ruby, gtk2 --> libgtk2-ruby, ...) and a meta-package,
called 'ruby-gnome2' depending on these libraries.
I've tried to summarize what's been proposed in this thread so far as best I
could, but it is entirely possible that I've missed some points. If so,
please correct me where I'm wrong. Otherwise, this might be a good start for
the Wiki page.
> On the matter of you joining the team, Thierry, I say: the more the merrier.
> So notify me of your alioth account name (or create it if you don't have
> any), so that I can add you to the team.
I already have an Alioth account: beatle-guest.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20051221/b5483a91/attachment.pgp
More information about the pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers