Re: libxml-libxml-xpathcontext-perl_0.07-1_i386.changes REJECTED
Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As you can see, the package libxml-libxml-xpathcontext-perl has been
> rejected from the NEW queue.
>
> Joerg find its name redundant, and I must say he's right:
>
> * Joerg Jaspert (joerg@debian.org) :
>> On 10797 March 1977, Alexis Sukrieh wrote:
>>
>>>> rejected, the package name looks a bit redundant for me:
>>>> libxml-libxml-xpathcontext-perl
>
> But the fact is that if you stricly apply the Perl policy for naming the
> package, you do get that name:
Yes, according to
http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names
it should be libxml-libxml-xpathcontext-perl
>>> Well, I know, but this name is the one you get if you apply strictly the
>>> Perl policy: it's the package of the module XML::LibXML::XPathContext...
>
> So the question is: must we _always_ apply the Perl policy for naming
> packages, or can we bypass that policy when the name becomes rdeundant
> like here?
>
> To me, there are only two possile names:
>
> - libxml-libxml-xpathcontext-perl (the Perl policy compliant one).
> - libxml-xpathcontext-perl (not redundant, but not compliant).
>
> I'd apreciate your comments on this...
I don't see problem with longer name (perl policy name) since we have
already in Debian packages libxml-libxml-common-perl and libxml-libxml-perl
eloy
--
-------e-l-o-y---------------------------e-l-o-y-@-k-o-f-e-i-n-a-.-n-e-t------
jak to dobrze, że są oceany - bez nich byłoby jeszcze smutniej
Reply to: