-=| Don Armstrong, Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 06:21:58PM -0700 |=- > On Wed, 03 Jun 2009, Ryan Niebur wrote: > > libapp-nopaste-perl should have been named nopaste. This was pointed > > out to us by some CPAN developer (Alias, maybe?)..iirc we quickly > > discussed it in #debian-perl and people generally agreed that it > > should be called nopaste. > > Packages that primarily exist to provide scripts don't take the name > of the perl modules they happen to provide. It's true that it's not > codified in the perl policy, but this is the primary exception in > actual practice. (However, they *may*, and often should Provides: > libfoo-bar-perl.) Especally in the nopaste case as the modles there are usable by others. > > if this were something that was actually followed by *everything*, > > and I was trying to break the rule that *everything* else followed, > > Save for the exception above, everything that I'm aware of follows > this rule. If you think that more exceptions to the rule should be > made, then provide a patch to the perl policy and lead a discussion on > this mailing list to get it changed. Otherwise, best to follow it. Thanks Don, for matherializing my thoughts :). In the concrete padre plugins case, how about this: * name all the plugin packages libpadre-plugin-$foo-perl as policy suggests * add "Enhances: padre" to all of them I believe this way an user installing padre via aptitude shall note that there are plugins and choose the ones she wants. This is the primary concern anyway, right? -- dam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature