Re: Source package naming for Perl modules
Julian Mehnle dijo [Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 01:15:36PM +0000]:
> Hi all,
> if you have 5 minutes of spare time, please read
> and give your opinions on whether, and under which circumstances, _source_
> packages of Perl modules in Debian should be required to be named
> /^lib.*-perl$/. (This is not about binary package names, which should be
> named so without a doubt.) Thanks!
I just don't see the sense in migrating from the way we currently
work, which -although maybe not perfect- is quite easy to understand
and dependable. _If_ there were packages that, besides a Perl module,
provided something else, of course they can get a different name. But
by far, most packages fit in our regular scheme, and _do_ fit (both
for binary and for source) in a lib.*-perl scheme. Why not?
And yes, I am all for moving mime-lite and similar abnormalities into
the regular scheme. They are just exceptions. Three packages (out of
over 1000 Perl modules currently in Debian) were mentioned - If they
are not depended on all over the place, moving to a saner way will be
in the interest of everybody. Even if they are quite popular as
dependencies, of course, we can provide the older name.
Gunnar Wolf - email@example.com - (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF