Don Armstrong wrote: > 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 > binary package. According to a simple survey of the packages in Lenny/amd64 (main, contrib, non-free), 2365 of the 11757 source packages (20%!) have no binary package of the same name. 814 of these (7% of all) have only a single binary package. Wanna mass-file bugs? Or maybe the reason doesn't have to be all that compelling.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.