Re: MBF alert: packages with very long source / .deb filenames
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:16:12PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:56:22 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> >Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I
>> >wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way.
>> In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little surprised by the
>> names here on two fronts:
>> 1. Why the "bundle" ?
>Because the ftp-masters don't (or at least didn't) want small
>packages in the archive.
>From the packaging point of view we'd split them up immediately if
>that was ok for them. Cf. #606411.
Ah, OK. :-(
>> 2. Why such a silly long name? What will happen if somebody comes
>> along with another perl module to add to this bundle, but with a
>> name twice as long? Does the source name for this tarball have to
>> contain the whole of the bundle name?
>As far as I understand source format v3 with multiple upstream
>tarballs, the first part (up to .orig) can't be changed as it needs
>to be the same as for the "main" package.  The second part (the
>component) name is free-form, and as I said earlier, here's a bit of
>room for us to shorten it (in this case e.g. from
>CGI-Application-Plugin-ValidateRM-2-3 to ValidateRM).
OK. That would be nice...
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. firstname.lastname@example.org
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me