Re: Bug#114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 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.
> Not that this is applicable to perl packages, but one very common
> reason for this to not be the case is that the package is a
> library... In that case, it's beneficial to have continuity of the
> source package name whereas the binary package name will change
Right; that's exactly the major compelling reason that I was thinking
about when I wrote the above.
There is no such thing as "social gambling." Either you are there to
cut the other bloke's heart out and eat it--or you're a sucker. If you
don't like this choice--don't gamble.
-- Robert Heinlein _Time Enough For Love_ p250