From aredridel at nbtsc.org  Mon Feb 23 05:27:37 2004
From: aredridel at nbtsc.org (Aredridel)
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 21:27:37 -0700
Subject: RFC: Ruby Packaging style
Message-ID: <20040223042737.GE8421@mail.nbtsc.org>

I've been packing up a number of Ruby packages of late, and I had a
style question:

If I have a ruby package, "active_record", version 0.5, that provides
the classes/module "ActiveRecord", what's a good package name for it?

	* active_record
  * ruby-active_record
  * ruby-ActiveRecord

I'm leaning toward the last, to be consistent with Perl. Comments?


From migo at supernet.com.pl  Mon Feb 23 10:58:42 2004
From: migo at supernet.com.pl (Bartek Jakubski)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:58:42 +0100
Subject: RFC: Ruby Packaging style
In-Reply-To: <20040223042737.GE8421@mail.nbtsc.org>
References: <20040223042737.GE8421@mail.nbtsc.org>
Message-ID: <20040223095842.GA16186@anorak.localhost>

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 09:27:37PM -0700, Aredridel wrote:
> I've been packing up a number of Ruby packages of late, and I had a
> style question:
> 
> If I have a ruby package, "active_record", version 0.5, that provides
> the classes/module "ActiveRecord", what's a good package name for it?
> 
> 	* active_record
>   * ruby-active_record
>   * ruby-ActiveRecord
> 
> I'm leaning toward the last, to be consistent with Perl. Comments?
> 

Sounds reasonable (not that I know anything about Ruby packages).

-- 
-- .- Bartek Jakubski ------- JabberID: migo at histeria.pl -. --
-- |   Free Software is a matter of liberty, not price    | --
-- `-----------------(http://www.fsf.org/philosophy)------' --


From mmazur at kernel.pl  Mon Feb 23 15:34:49 2004
From: mmazur at kernel.pl (Mariusz Mazur)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:34:49 +0100
Subject: RFC: Ruby Packaging style
In-Reply-To: <20040223042737.GE8421@mail.nbtsc.org>
References: <20040223042737.GE8421@mail.nbtsc.org>
Message-ID: <200402231534.49421.mmazur@kernel.pl>

On Monday 23 of February 2004 05:27, Aredridel wrote:
> I've been packing up a number of Ruby packages of late, and I had a
> style question:
>
> If I have a ruby package, "active_record", version 0.5, that provides
> the classes/module "ActiveRecord", what's a good package name for it?
>
> 	* active_record
>   * ruby-active_record
>   * ruby-ActiveRecord
>
> I'm leaning toward the last, to be consistent with Perl. Comments?

Perl uses capital letters, python uses capital letters, so I see no reason to 
change that.

-- 
Ka?dy cz?owiek, kt?ry naprawd? ?yje, nie ma charakteru, nie mo?e go mie?.
Charakter jest zawsze martwy, otacza ci? zgni?a struktura przeniesiona z 
przesz?o?ci. Je?eli dzia?asz zgodnie z charakterem wtedy nie dzia?asz w og?le
- jedynie mechanicznie reagujesz.                 { Osho }


From aredridel at nbtsc.org  Mon Feb 23 15:47:39 2004
From: aredridel at nbtsc.org (Aredridel)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:47:39 -0700
Subject: RFC: Ruby Packaging style
In-Reply-To: <200402231534.49421.mmazur@kernel.pl>
References: <20040223042737.GE8421@mail.nbtsc.org> <200402231534.49421.mmazur@kernel.pl>
Message-ID: <20040223144739.GG8421@mail.nbtsc.org>

> >   * ruby-ActiveRecord
> >
> > I'm leaning toward the last, to be consistent with Perl. Comments?
> 
> Perl uses capital letters, python uses capital letters, so I see no reason to 
> change that.

Alright. I'll rename ruby-DBI and company.


From aredridel at nbtsc.org  Tue Feb 24 19:41:23 2004
From: aredridel at nbtsc.org (Aredridel)
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 11:41:23 -0700
Subject: RFC: rc-scripts / daemon --fork
Message-ID: <20040224184123.GE30294@mail.nbtsc.org>

I just packaged SPF and SRS daemons; I had to do this in the init
script:

   daemon "sh -c 'commmand &'"

to make the messages display properly.  It is ugly.

Should I extend rc-scripts, so one can just:

	daemon --fork command

Ari