Re: Bug#114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> 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?
No, because changing the source package name is worse than having a
stupid source package name. [The complications that it makes for bug
tracking is the major reason why changing source package names should
not be done unless required.]
> Or maybe the reason doesn't have to be all that compelling.
The reason should be compelling. While it's unfortunate that stupid
source package names have been chosen on initial uploads in the past,
I'm more concerned about the choice of source package names going
He no longer wished to be dead. At the same time, it cannot be said
that he was glad to be alive. But at least he did not resent it. He
was alive, and the stubbornness of this fact had little by little
begun to fascinate him -- as if he had managed to outlive himself, as
if he were somehow living a posthumous life.
-- Paul Auster _City of Glass_