Rename binary releases to ruby-bin-...

[havenwood]

Adding bin to Ruby binary releases avoids confusion between binary and source releases. So ruby-2.1.0.tar.bz2 binary would become ruby-bin-2.1.0.tar.bz2.

[mpapis]

good point, we had to rename the binaries to bin-* when downloading into rvm/archives to avoid the same problem, would it be an issue if I would name then bin-ruby-* instead of ruby-bin-*?

[havenwood]

It does avoids binary/source confusion either way. I do think ruby-bin-* would be a bit better than bin-ruby-* though. Having source and binary Rubies always start with ruby-* seems like a good thing. Also JRuby is currently doing jruby-bin-* and adopting that convention might be a nice thing for the community going forward.

Not quite as easy as prepending bin- to the name but I think ruby-bin-* may be worth doing? Perhaps something like RUBY_BIN_ARCHIVE="${RUBY_ARCHIVE%%-*}-bin-${RUBY_ARCHIVE##*-}" for a bash substitution solution. Or is bin-ruby-* a preferred naming convention to adopt for other reasons?

[mpapis]

bin-* mostly to limit scope of the changes and to keep compatibility with existing code as rvm 1.x is feature frozen, I'm not sold on the jruby conversion as it requires injecting the -bin- into the name compared to the simple prefixing the name - less code = less errors ...

[ghost]

the filename bin-ruby looks unusual and strange to me. i would prefer ruby-bin, but then again I'm not writing any code to download these tarballs.

[postmodern]

@robgleeson I concur. I've only seen project-foo-1.2.3 or project-1.2.3-foo. ruby-2.0.0-bin looks OK.

[richo]

+1 for ${ruby_version}-bin

[headius]

JRuby has used jruby-bin-version and jruby-src-version for many years, so that's my vote.

[grk]

ruby-bin-version seems most logical