[pimlott@idiomtech.com: perl package sections]

[Raphael Hertzog <rhertzog@hrnet.fr>]

Hi,

a proposition for the perl policy has been made by Andrew Pimlott.
I've attached his mail ...

I don't know what to think about it. I'm not much in favor of it 
because it seems obvious that a perl module which is about treating email
could be in section mail. The other way of thinking is it's a perl module
so it's useful with the perl interpreter, it must be in section
interpreter is quite logical too.

I wouldn't impose anything but maybe other people have other ideas ? What
do people think about it ? :)

Cheers,
-- 
Hertzog Raphaël >> 0C4CABF1 >> http://prope.insa-lyon.fr/~rhertzog/

--- Begin Message ---

• To: hertzog@debian.org
• Subject: perl package sections
• From: Andrew Pimlott <pimlott@idiomtech.com>
• Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:52:09 -0400
• Message-id: <19990715235209.A2242@nolfolan.idiomtech.com>

I noticed during the sudden influx of perl package updates that some perl
libraries are not in the section "interpreters".  Then I noticed that the
new perl policy doesn't say anything about which section perl libraries
should be in.  Then I noticed that sections in general are simply left to
the discretion of the packager.

That's fine as far as the whole distribution goes--completely specifying
what goes into each section would be endlessly tedious.  But I wonder
whether for perl packages we should impose a bit more order.  I'd like to
know that I can restrict myself to "interpreters" when looking for perl
libraries.

Would you consider adding this to your perl policy?

Thanks,
Andrew

(I am not a developer or on the debian-perl list.  Feel free to forword any
of my thoughts, however.)

--- End Message ---