pabs at pablotron.org
Thu Oct 21 23:08:28 EDT 2004
* Gavin Sinclair (gsinclair at soyabean.com.au) wrote:
> On Friday, October 22, 2004, 12:47:48 PM, Paul wrote:
> > * Gavin Sinclair (gsinclair at soyabean.com.au) wrote:
> >> On Friday, October 22, 2004, 7:15:21 AM, Paul wrote:
> >> > Speaking of normalizing things, how about the filenames? Can you
> >> > downcase! the project name when converting it to the gem file name?
> >> Shouldn't the file name be the same as the project name, to avoid
> >> confusion when using require_gem?
> > I believe the convention is to always have a lowercase path and library,
> > regardless of the name of the actual library.
> > So, SOAP4r becomes
> > require 'soqp4r'
> > and Test::Unit becomes
> > require 'test/unit'
> > I've been doing that for my bindings (Imlib2-Ruby => 'imlib2', etc).
> I've been doing that too, but I don't see why we should allow a
> difference between gem file name and require_gem argument, given that
> we don't actually enforce this convention.
> Stepping back a bit, the gem file name is unimportant. It's what the
> user sees in their gem list that matters, and what they have to load
I agree that what the user sees in the gem list is ultimately the most
important thing. That said, it seems like enforcing this naming system
allows people packaging gems to have a grammatically correct application
title ("Foo-Bar") and also have a package name that conforms to what
appears to be standard in Debian and on the RAA.
That's the best techincal justification I can come up with, but
lower-case package names also look cleaner to me. Then again, that
could be several years of Debian naming tainting my opinion :D.
Paul Duncan <pabs at pablotron.org> OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/attachments/20041021/495f9b69/attachment.bin
More information about the Rubygems-developers