Re: Duplicate review request for rubygem-vagrant
Dne 30.10.2013 13:23, Dridi Boukelmoune napsal(a):
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Josef Stribny
<jstribny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/30/2013 10:45 AM, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
>> What prevails between the ruby naming guidelines and the "prior art"
>> rule (other distros package name) in the general naming guidelines ?
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#General_Naming
>> http://packages.ubuntu.com/raring/vagrant
>> http://packages.debian.org/stable/vagrant
>>
>>
> And how vagrant differs from rhc and other client command line tools that
> are distributed as gems and follow this convention?
I am wondering if you are being sarcastic. If not, please do not mind
this answer.
If yes, this was a genuine question. I'm not saying this should be
named vagrant, just that I like the name better. It's just that some
rules conflict on this matter, and I don't know the answer. I might
package ruby stuff in the future though I haven't planned anything so
far. As I said in the next sentence, I'm more concerned about the
double review.
Sincerely,
Dridi
There is more examples of Ruby packages, such as deltacloud-core,
puppet, which don't use the rubygem-prefix. The question is if vagrant
is application or library.
If it is application, then it should be without rubygem- prefix and
should not install into rubygems directory. If that is library, then it
should have the rubygem- prefix and install among other rubygems. But
the border might be fuzzy.
Vít