Jeremiah Foster wrote: > On Sep 23, 2007, at 5:08 PM, Julian Mehnle wrote: > >> As you can see from the above, I am against the re-naming and prefer > >> the scheme we currently have. > > > > So what is going happen to mime-tools, soap-lite, and timedate? > > I think you raise an important issue; shouldn't the naming of a > package accurately reflect the contents? Your point that the above > packages supply something _other_ than a binary and therefor should > reflect that fact is important - especially since debian wants to > provide a consistent interface for users. I checked those 3 packages and the only one of them to ship executables outside an examples/ dir is soap-lite. So are you saying that the soap-lite source package should be (re)named soap-lite-perl, whereas the other two source packages should be (re)named libmime-tools-perl and libtimedate-perl? > What about dropping just the lib prefix? So we would get mime-tools- > perl and not libmime-tools-perl. <devil's-advocate> Even though mime-tools ships only library files and no executables (beyond the examples/ dir)? </devil's-advocate> Is it really that important to have consistent source package names? Your argument from earlier that "breaking that convention is not freedom to choose, rather a gratuitous re-naming that confuses and upsets users unnecessarily" ignores that there's always `apt-cache search`, which is usually a much better way to find the Debian package corresponding to some Perl module than guessing the package name.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.