From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-11-17T23:58:35+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] rpa-base 0.2.3

Hi --

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Mauricio Fern�ndez wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 02:08:23PM +0900, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> > > rpa-base 0.2.3 is now available at http://rpa-base.rubyforge.org . 
> > 
> > I just noticed that RubyMail is part of RPA -- pretty neat!  :-)
> 
> Would you like to receive notifications of future package revisions?
> 
> > I am planning to release a new major version of RubyMail that is
> > completely incompatible with prior versions.  While the package name
> > will still be RubyMail, the libs will be in 'rubymail/*' instead of
> > 'rmail/*'.  I have noticed that the library path location 'rmail' has
> > caused packages to call their packages 'rmail', makes it hard for me
> > to actually identify them as being RubyMail.
> 
> mmm yes, I can see librmail-ruby1.{6,8} in Debian...
> 
> > One advantage of this is that both old and new versions of rubymail
> > will be able to co-exist.
> > 
> > Will this totally screw RPA? 
> 
> I hope not :)
> 
> Since your new major version is going to be completely incompatible with
> the previous ones, I think it would make sense to do the equivalent to a
> soname change, that is, something like
>   require 'rubymail'    ==>   require 'rubymail1'
> The port/package name would be rubymail1; in time, the current rubymail
> port/package, corresponding to 0.17, could be renamed to rubymail0.
> 
> The major number (of the API) actually belongs to the name of the
> library, in a way, and the 'soname change' is less invasive than a

I wouldn't say it does unless someone decides they want to release a
library called "mylib7" or whatever.  The name of the library is the
name of the library.  

> versioned require, and nicer to third party port/package systems (think
> of Debian for instance).

Can I put in a plea for not cultivating the "program2" syndrome in
Ruby programs and libraries?  Maybe it's just a pet peeve... but I
really hate it when, a year or two after setting up a system with kde,
xchat, apache, libxml, etc., I'm suddenly running kde3, xchat2,
apache2, libxml2, etc.  Those are silly names for programs, whereas
the original names were relatively reasonable.  

The prospect of everything having to end in a number as a packaging
workaround suggests to me that something needs to be addressed in the
packaging system.  Surely having a package/program/library name and a
version number as separate things is not only more aesthetically
appealing but vastly more scaleable.


David (who intends to keep calling Ruby Ruby, whatever its version :-)

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net