Re: please advice package names for padre plugins
Another thing to mention is that all of this might be masked by
something that would ask what plugins you'd like to install (having
set them as Recommends or Suggests) for padre itself. So I'm not sure
what the naming *really* matters in practice.
On the other hand I think that (as I mentioned earlier, and I'm no
expert here of course, and definitely as a DD, Don has a fair amount
of experience here) -- padre is named thus instead of libpadre-perl,
as it would have been if we strictly followed the policy.
My justification for preferring "padre-plugin-" etc is simply that you
can (in general) take a program, and suffix something to the end of
that, and know that they are related, that they are useful features
that enhance it.
So, if padre-plugin is wrong, then I submit that also padre itself is
wrong. It should be libpadre-perl. But it's not really a library, so
that doesn't make sense either.
As padre is a full application, it has been packaged simply as
'padre'. So I think the most predictable place to find things would be
under 'padre' itself, rather than libpadre, no matter what the Debian
Perl policy currently is.
However, Don does raise a very valid point -- this is the current
policy. If we have something wrong with it, then rather than directly
breaking policy (or after having done so), we need to strongly
recommend a fix to the policy itself, so that others don't have this
sort of drawn out argument.
Cheers,
Jonathan
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 8:44 PM, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jun 2009, Ryan Niebur wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 08:26:25AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> > Or more difficult if you expect it to follow the perl policy. [It
>> > also means that you have to special case padre plugin dependencies
>> > when you're looking for them.]
>>
>> following perl policy isn't a reason to do something imo. perl
>> policy is (correctly) not followed in some other situations.
>
> If the policy is wrong, bugs should be filed, and it should be
> changed.
>
>> and one time I followed this part of perl policy and later (after it
>> was uploaded, oops, that will be a mess to clean up, if I ever do..)
>> got told I was wrong.
>
> By whom and in what case?
>
>> I don't want to make that mistake again, so I no longer strictly
>> follow this part of perl policy. wrt special casing looking for
>> depends, no need to do that, dh-make-perl does this all
>> automatically for us.
>
> Except when you're a human being looking for them.
>
>> the padre-plugin-* package naming form makes much more sense imho,
>> and it looks better. a user would probably think it's strange to
>> install libpadre-plugin-foo-perl, and that package name makes no
>> sense (other than "because perl policy says to do that", which most
>> users won't even know about). for normal cpan dists, it does make
>> sense.
>
> The entire point of the naming policy is to have a consistent naming
> scheme for all perl packages which provide modules. Violating it
> should only be done in cases where there is a significant issue with
> following the policy, and aesthetics ("looks better") don't really
> qualify as a significant issue.
>
>
> Don Armstrong
>
> --
> All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
> -- Gaius Julius Caesar in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust
>
> http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-perl-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
Reply to: