Re: Perl 5.004, perl modules, and binary compatibility
On 19 May 1997, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Well, with 5.004, CGI-modules is obsolete, and so the
> misnaming of the CGI modules package is a solved issue
> ;-). (Unless. of course, there is a hew-and-cry about removing the
> package, I'd suggest removing CGI-modules from hamm).
No real objection here. As I stated earlier, I'm concerned about such a
potentially fast moving target being included in perl, but I guess the
perl-porters got sick of answering questions about finding modules for CGI
programming.
> As for the description issue, even the one line description of
> CGI-modules stated that these were modules for perl 5. By just the
> name itself, most packages do not specify their purpose (what does
> perl say, pray?)
My main concern is that they neither bunch up on the dpkg select screen,
nor is it easy to search for perl modules in dselect (I'd like to be able
to find all the perl modules by searching on perl).
> If the descriptions are remiss, please file a bug report.
Is a misnamed package a bug? I'd like to give this more thought (and
solicit more comments) before rocking that boat.
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Scott K. Ellis | Argue for your limitations and |
| storm@gate.net | sure enough, they're yours. |
| | -- Illusions |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: