Re: source package name restricted by policy? (Was: Bug#493308: ITP: libconfig-model...)
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 11:12:03AM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> >-=| Jonas Smedegaard, Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 08:46:07AM +0200 |=-
> >> On Sat, Aug 02, 2008 at 01:57:58AM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:36:37 -0400, Nicolas Valcarcel wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Package name: libconfig-model
> >> >
> >> >The package should be named libconfig-model-perl; cf.
> >> >http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-module_packages.html
> >>
> >> Do policy govern name of _source_ package too?
> >
> >I think, yes, unless there is a reason for the source package name to
> >differ from the binary package name.
>
> Do you personally *prefer* naming source package equal to main
> binary package, or do you believe that Perl Policy *mandates* this?
There's no mandate of it in policy, to my knowledge, but if it becomes
a problem we may need to mandate it.
There's no reason to use a different source package name in the case
where you're distributing a single binary package.[1] When doing so,
it just makes tracking and filing bugs more complicated and needlessly
polutes the namespace.
[It also leads to insanity like src:foo providing bin:bar while
src:bar provides bin:foo.]
Don Armstrong
1: And generally when you're distributiing multiple binaries, your
source package should have one of their names.
--
"People selling drug paraphernalia ... are as much a part of drug
trafficking as silencers are a part of criminal homicide."
-- John Brown, DEA Chief
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: