Damyan Ivanov wrote: > > It's also useful for libraries that do provide an executable script or > > two, such as Mail::SPF, which I intend to package shortly (it's the > > successor of Mail::SPF::Query). The mail-spf-perl source package has > > two binary packages: libmail-spf-perl and spf-tools-perl (containing > > two executable scripts that use Mail::SPF). > > Separate package just for two scripts? What's the reason to split this? Packages named "lib*" shouldn't contain executables, should they? Also, there's a chance that spf-tools-perl might one day become independent of (or at least not solely dependent on) Mail::SPF if other Perl-based SPF tools are added.
Description: PGP signature