On Oct 12, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Takahiro Kambe wrote:

> 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).

I think the question is whether we should use the language name as a  
prefix for standalone applications.  It makes sense for modules, but  
I'm not sure about standalone applications.  Other script languages  
(Python, Tcl, etc.) in pkgsrc don't use the prefix for most of them.

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

If we change the package name because "Ruby on Rails" is a popular  
name, it should be "ruby-on-rails."  IMHO, "ruby-rails" is more  
confusing.  But I thought "rails" was fine since it is often called  
just "Rails."  Look at the book titles such as "Agile Web Development  
with Rails" and "Rails Recipes."

Regards,
Min