https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=826520 Moses Mendoza <moses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |moses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #21 from Moses Mendoza <moses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- I don't think it should be split into two packages or renamed, but I agree this is a gray area. My interpretation (please correct me if I'm mistaken) of the ruby naming guidelines is that if a package is and only is a library/extension package, then it should be named ruby-$UPSTREAM (as opposed to "mostly is" a library). In that sense, Hiera shouldn't be named ruby-hiera because it is not explicitly a library only - it provides a user-level tool also. But it is primarily a library, in that, anecdotally at least, most users use it that way and not as a standalone application, so it's not really explicitly an "Application" either, and it would probably be less appropriate if it was packaged as such. My two cents is that hiera should probably qualify as a 'pure ruby package,' and %{ruby_vendorlibdir} is appropriate. As for splitting into two packages, I also think it's overkill. However, it would ensure that when packages such as puppet bring in hiera for a dependency, they only have to bring in the library and not the binary. But I personally feel this is a sledge-hammer to fly kind of solution and that the current setup is fairly sane. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review