Re: Naming policy for Perl modules (mass bug filing)
On Tue, 23 Mar 2010, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Jozef Kutej <email@example.com> writes:
Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
the Debian Perl Policy asks for packages for the Foo::Bar module to be
Perl module packages *should* be named... :)
"Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended)
will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a
package unsuitable for distribution."
I don't object to naming packages differently if there is a reason to do
so, but fail to see one for these packages (except for perlmagick which
is also the upstream name as noted by Bastien ROUCARIES ).
as the maintainer for one of the listed modules, I can tell you that I
don't object to the notion of changing the name (I have often considered
it) but for the fact that
1. it would entail a lot of changes for the packages which depend on it
2. the ifeffit source package is contrib and cannot be built by the
autobuilders because of its build time dependence on pgplot5.
The latter is causing me much grief and needs to be solved before I work
on consistency issues. Right now I have to build the package by hand on
whatever architectures I can get my hands on (I only have 8) and upload
all the binaries. The package has not migrated to testing for nearly 2
years because not all the architectures are present and until this is
resolved, there is really no point since it will only languish in
So please go ahead and file the bug, I will consider it as wishlist until
I can get the rest resolved.
Crankily (but not with the Perl Developers),
Carlo U. Segre -- Professor of Physics
Associate Dean for Graduate Admissions, Graduate College
Illinois Institute of Technology
Voice: 312.567.3498 Fax: 312.567.3494
firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.iit.edu/~segre email@example.com