On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:04:58PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
Jozef Kutej <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:Ansgar Burchardt wrote:the Debian Perl Policy asks for packages for the Foo::Bar module to bePerl module packages *should* be named... :)"Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended) will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a package unsuitable for distribution." I don't object to naming packages differently if there is a reason to do so, but fail to see one for these packages (except for perlmagick which is also the upstream name as noted by Bastien ROUCARIES ).  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/03/msg00706.html
What is so special about Perlmagick? I do not know of *any* upstream project named lib*-perl, so same argument would be true for most Perl module packages, I believe.
- Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature