Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ruby Gem package guidelines"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Comment on packaging guidelines.)
(Comment on conversation.)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
: I agree. I already do this for several of my packages, such as {{AUR|ruby-adsf}}, {{AUR|ruby-reek}}, and {{AUR|ruby-nanoc}}.
 
: I agree. I already do this for several of my packages, such as {{AUR|ruby-adsf}}, {{AUR|ruby-reek}}, and {{AUR|ruby-nanoc}}.
 
: [[User:Ichimonji10|Ichimonji10]] ([[User talk:Ichimonji10|talk]]) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 
: [[User:Ichimonji10|Ichimonji10]] ([[User talk:Ichimonji10|talk]]) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 +
: [[Python Package Guidelines#Package naming]] has a similar naming convention: {{ic|python-''packagename''}} for libs and {{ic|''packagename''}} for applications. If the naming standard changes for Ruby packages, then the naming standard should also change for Python packages, purely for the sake of consistency.
 +
: [[User:Ichimonji10|Ichimonji10]] ([[User talk:Ichimonji10|talk]]) 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:26, 9 December 2013

> For libraries, use ruby-gemname. For applications, use the program name.

For me it makes more sense to use ruby-$gemname for *all* packages created from gems. It makes things simpler.

Anatolik (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Anatolik

I agree. I already do this for several of my packages, such as ruby-adsfAUR, ruby-reekAUR, and ruby-nanocAUR.
Ichimonji10 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Python Package Guidelines#Package naming has a similar naming convention: python-packagename for libs and packagename for applications. If the naming standard changes for Ruby packages, then the naming standard should also change for Python packages, purely for the sake of consistency.
Ichimonji10 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)