Re: Source package naming for Perl modules
Daniel Ruoso <email@example.com> writes:
> I would stick to lib*-perl unless the project has a cultural identity by
> itself, like mime-tools does. I think it should be completely case by
> I, in the other hand, strongly discourage the use of perl-something or
> something-perl (unless it's how the project is called by the community).
> If there's a need to call "something-perl" or "perl-something" it's
> better to stick to the standard schema. I mean, we don't need more than
> one standard for that.
Yeah. It arguably would have been nice if we'd standardized on
perl-<module> way back when, but, well, we didn't, and changing isn't
worth it. I think having the source package named the same as the binary
package is extremely nice and not something to drop lightly.
Russ Allbery (firstname.lastname@example.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>