Re: source package name restricted by policy? (Was: Bug#493308: ITP: libconfig-model...)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 08:07:12AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>On Fri, 08 Aug 2008, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> 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. 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.]
>1: And generally when you're distributiing multiple binaries, your
>source package should have one of their names.
Thanks for clarifying. This is also my interpretation.
I tend to name the source package like upstream, like this (one that I
am initially packaging currently):
Upstream name: cipux-rpc
Source package: cipux-rpc
Binary packages: libcipux-rpc-perl, cipux-rpcd, cipux-rpc-tools
The project contains a "cipux-rpcd" daemon, the Perl libraries
CipUX::RPC, CipUX::RPC::Server, CipUX::RPC::Server::Daemon,
CipUX::Test::Client, and the CLI tools cipux_mkcertkey, cipux_rpc_list
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----