Re: Bug#114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily
> intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing
> the binary package naming, maybe we can decide whether the mandate should
> be extended to the _source_ package name as well while we're at it, and
> clarify the Perl policy to explicitly state whether or not the source
> package name is covered by the policy's recommendation.
Unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary, a source package
should in general build at least one binary package of the same name.
This is definetly the case when the source package only builds one
The reasons why you want to do this is because everyone knows what the
binary package name is, but it's sometimes difficult to map to a
source package, and it prevents the insanity of Source: foo building
Binary: bar, and Source: bar buildling Binary: foo. (Yes, there is at
least one set of packages in the archive that does this.)
If you wish to strive for peace of soul, then believe; if you wish to
be a devotee of truth, then inquire.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche