In message <fe61f8890610120917k3c1affa0ife380067b1d713d3@mail.gmail.com>
	on Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:17:29 -0700,
	"Min Sik Kim" <minskim@NetBSD.org> wrote:
> > I would have preferd this to be named ruby-rails...
> 
> Other ruby-* packages have the prefix because they may be installed
> with multiple ruby interpreters.  This package may not.  So I just
> used the distfile name.
Intention for "ruby18-*" prefix for a package name is explicitly
indicating "This package is for Ruby 1.8.x." and "ruby-*" prefix was
simply "This package is for any version of Ruby or isn't depends on
Ruby 1.8.x package."

Of course, it is for coexistence with multiple version of ruby package
installation and avoiding the same name for the binary package.

If the binary package runs on any ruby??-base package, then "ruby-"
prefix is enough.  But such packages are ruby-mode or ruby-rd-mode
because of dependency to installed library path (RUBY_SITELIBDIR and
so on).


Anyway, now "Ruby on Rails" is very poplular name, I think that
"ruby-rails" might be intuitive name for users at least.

-- 
Takahiro Kambe <taca@back-street.net>