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

Re: Perl modules in Debian that do not adhere to Debian's naming policy



Hi,

Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> >> (bioperl: usr/share/perl5/Bio/Align/AlignI.pm and 858 others)
> >>   --> libbio-perl
> >>   Also has stuff in usr/bin/*, upstream name is "bioperl".
> >
> > to all bioinformaticians, Bioperl in know as Bioperl and not as
> > Bio::Perl. I do not think that renaming the source package to
> > libbio-perl would bring a benefit.
> >
> > Nevertheless, if this is a requirement, I will obey.
> 
> It is a requirement for Perl module (binary) packages, the name of the
> source package does not matter.  The package for the Bio module should
> be name libbio-perl [...]

Wouldn't be so sure about that.

As Guy Hulbert wrote:
> [...] it seems Bio::Perl is the upstream name ... several years
> since i looked at Bioperl and I was not following the thread
> sufficiently carefully. So the proper name would be:
> libbio-perl-perl

I agree here WRT the package name.

Although libbio-perl may be sufficient since there also seem other
Bio::* modules in. Not sure if there are other non-bioperl Perl
modules in the Bio::* name space at all.

The Debian Perl Policy says:

| Perl module packages should be named for the primary module
| provided. The naming convention for module Foo::Bar is
| libfoo-bar-perl.

Since according to http://search.cpan.org/dist/bioperl/ Bio::Perl
("Functional access to BioPerl for people who don't know objects")
could be called "primary module", I would go with libbio-perl-perl
even if it's not intuitive.

Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> Bioperl includes several programs in /usr/bin and the package
> description also says "Perl tools [...]" (not modules).  I am therefore
> not sure if it should be named like a module package or not.
> (This is also the reason for the parenthesis in the original list.)

I also suggest to think about splitting it up if the modules can be
used without the binaries, i.e. they are a real library. I suggest to
call the packages then bioperl and libbio-perl-perl. This also makes
up the non-intuitiveness of the libary package name sinc bioperl will
obviously depend on libbio-perl-perl.

Just my $0.02. :-)

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE
  `-    |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5


Reply to: