On 30/10/13 09:16, Josef Stribny wrote:
yes, according to guidelines[1], it should be named rubygem-vagrant
since it's convention for all RubyGems.
Is vagrant not an "Application package that mainly provides user-level
tools that happen to be written in Ruby" though? In which case by the
third point the general naming guidelines should be followed instead?
Tom
--
Tom Hughes (tom(a)compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/