Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Note that the source package name is, for users, *completly*
> unimportant. About 99.99999999999999999% of them will never ever see
> it.
A slight deliberate understatement, I assume. ;-)
> For your Mail::SPF one - from looking at its cpan site the Mail::SPF
> part really looks like it should be in a libmail-spf-perl package, as
> that would be the first thing *I* as a user would look for. (Its
> intended to get used by others, right?)
So which one is it? Users look for source package names or they don't?
I think those that do, actually use `apt-cache {search,show}` (or the
equivalent in some package manager) or just Google.
> Next question is if spfd/spfquery warrant an own package with an own
> name or not (size issues for example).
I think library (binary) packages should not contain executables.
> Oh, and Debian already has a spfquery (and libmail-spf-query-perl)
> package.
The existing spfquery package is based on libspf2, which is (a) a
completely different SPF implementation and (b) somewhat outdated.
libmail-spf-query-perl contains Mail::SPF::Query, a legacy SPF
implementation which Mail::SPF aims to replace (in featureset, not in
API).
So these are really unrelated to Mail::SPF.
BTW, the various `spfquery` executables in the libspf2, libmail-spf-query-
perl, mail-spf-perl, and pyspf source packages (only the first two being
in Debian proper right now, the others being in Ubuntu) cohabitate via the
alternatives system.
Attachment:
pgp94H9nbhb7u.pgp
Description: PGP signature