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

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reply to conversation.)
Line 11: Line 11:
 
: I believe all other language PKGBUILD guidelines (perl/python/..) have the same rule. And all of them should be changed.
 
: I believe all other language PKGBUILD guidelines (perl/python/..) have the same rule. And all of them should be changed.
 
: [[User:Anatolik|Anatolik]] ([[User talk:Anatolik|talk]]) 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 
: [[User:Anatolik|Anatolik]] ([[User talk:Anatolik|talk]]) 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 +
:: I would love to see that happen. I don't know the magnitude of such a task or who would need to be convinced. [[User:Ichimonji10|Ichimonji10]] ([[User talk:Ichimonji10|talk]]) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:40, 16 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)

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)
I believe all other language PKGBUILD guidelines (perl/python/..) have the same rule. And all of them should be changed.
Anatolik (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would love to see that happen. I don't know the magnitude of such a task or who would need to be convinced. Ichimonji10 (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)