Re: Perl Police (was Re: Bug#10405: package naming)
On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Brian S. Julin wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > I think this naming scheme is quite reasonable. What does everyone else
> > think about it?
> What do you do if you do have a package turn up with an underscore
> in its name?
We could easily replace it with a dash (-).
> > (I'm definitely against having more special characters in file names, as
> > `+' or `:'.)
> Personally I think it would be best to change the module name as
> little as possible. '+' and ':' were at some point legal for package
> names, according to deb-make's error messages and behavior. Perhaps
> we should just ask a dpkg pro?
I would not like to have these special characters in file names. Let us
try to stick to the current "set of legal characters".
> > This sounds as you've set up a "default procedure" of how to pack CPAN's
> > module into .deb's. Great! I always thought of something like that but I
> > never had time to do so.
> Yes, I'm working on it at least. My next step is to add pod2html calls
> so the Debian policy on using HTML when possible is satisfied. I am
> doing this with an architecture subclass MM module for ExtUtils::MakeMaker
> and a few very minor changes to MakeMaker.pm itself. You can examine
> the work-in-progress at http://calyx.com/~bri/projects/Debian/
I did not yet have time to look at your page. However, this sounds great!
IMHO, we should try to get all stuff of CPAN into debs--and this should be
highly automized. And of course, every package should provide HTML docs.
> One of the goals here is for the packages to smartly determine
> which other perl packages they depend upon by examining the
> 'use' and 'require' statements and such. This is already partly
> done by MakeMaker, in fact there is an ALPHA test extension that
> goes to the CPAN ftp archive to retrieve files you are lacking
> automatically. All I need to to is harness the results of the
> functions they are using for debian's purposes.
> However I will end up with a major headache if I cannot reliably
> map perl module names to debian package names. I'd prefer it to
> be pretty, but definitely need it to be functional. It's bad enough
> that the case-folding runs me the risk of collisions between module
What is your problem exactly? We could easily change our standard to
"cpan-xxx.deb", for example.
> > Since CPAN's modules all apply to a certain "standard" (i.e. all makefiles
> > have the same structure) such a default procedure is definitely a good
> > thing. (Perhaps we could add this functionality to deb-make. If it
> > discovers a CPAN module it could set up everything for the maintainer
> > automatically and he/she would just have to fill in the description, etc.)
> Yes, I was thinking that my MM_Debian_Linux.pm file could be distributed
> in the deb-make package.
> Answer me a question -- I see a lot of newer debian packages using
> "./debian/stamp-build" as the stamp target yet deb-make and
> dpkg-buildpackage seem to like to touch and clean "./build", which I
> suppose is obsolete behavior. I note though that the "hello" package
> still uses it. Is there a good example of a modern debian/rules
> file available? I'd be willing to mail the maintainer of deb-make
> a patch to modernize it.
I don't know of such a change. However, the "hello" package is still the
one that should be used as reference if you are in doubt. Note, that the
"deb-make" package is still a bit "unofficial", though it is really
-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Debian GNU/Linux? email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .