[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to: