Re: Bug#114920: [PROPOSAL] remove foolish consistency in perl module names
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with
> wording and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and
> resolve it one way or the other.
[...]
>> Proposal:
>>
>> Replace section 3.2 of the perl sub-policy included with Debian policy
>> with the following text:
>>
>> Packages which contain perl modules should provide virtual packages
>> that correspond to the primary module or modules in the package. The
>> naming convention is that for module 'Foo::Bar', the package should
>> provide 'libfoo-bar-perl'. This may be used as the package's name if
>> the result is not too long and cumbersome. Or the package's name may
>> be an abbreviated version, and the longer name put in the Provides
>> field.
>>
>> Also, although they are not currently part of the formal policy, there
>> are conventions to use similar naming for java (and maybe python) module
>> packages, and if this proposal is passed, those informal policies should
>> be updated to work the same way.
The recent discussion of the resurrection of this proposal was generally
negative, with nearly everyone commenting either preferring the current
consistency to the abbreviation of package names or not seeing enough
benefit to argue for a change.
I'm going to go ahead and close this bug so that it doesn't linger in the
Policy BTS further, since I believe the consensus is against taking any
action. (Debian Policy bugs that don't reach consensus have a tendency to
sit around forever.) If you disagree with that consensus after reviewing
the Policy bug log, please discuss this further.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: