[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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:
>> libcgi-application-basic-plugin-bundle-perl_0.5.orig-CGI-Application-Plugin-ValidateRM-2-3.tar.gz
>> 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. [0] 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.                                steve@einval.com
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me 

Reply to: