Re: Bug#114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily
> > intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing
> > the binary package naming, maybe we can decide whether the mandate should
> > be extended to the _source_ package name as well while we're at it, and
> > clarify the Perl policy to explicitly state whether or not the source
> > package name is covered by the policy's recommendation.
> Unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary, a source package
> should in general build at least one binary package of the same name.
> This is definetly the case when the source package only builds one
> binary package.
Not that this is applicable to perl packages, but one very common reason for
this to not be the case is that the package is a library... In that case,
it's beneficial to have continuity of the source package name whereas the
binary package name will change periodically.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/