Re: Naming policy for Perl modules (mass bug filing)
Jozef Kutej <email@example.com> writes:
> Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>> the Debian Perl Policy asks for packages for the Foo::Bar module to be
> Perl module packages *should* be named... :)
"Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended)
will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a
package unsuitable for distribution."
I don't object to naming packages differently if there is a reason to do
so, but fail to see one for these packages (except for perlmagick which
is also the upstream name as noted by Bastien ROUCARIES ).
>> I believe these modules should be renamed to have a consistent naming
>> scheme in Debian instead of using a prefix "perl-" or omitting the "lib"
>> for some packages.
> what should be the motivation and reasoning for spending time on this
> task? as it will require change on the package it self, all the
> packages that have it as dependency, plus an transition effort in
> order to make the upgrades work properly. can you list the benefits?
· Consistency. I like to find packages with a name I would expect.
Charles Plessy  and Philipp Kern  seem to agree with this.
· A good example. When packages that do not live in the Debian
archive do not adhere to the naming policy are installed, there
are problems when Debian introduces the same Perl module .
This was the reason I started looking for these packages.
(I know that already existing packages will not cause this problem,
but they should be a good example for other people.)
>> Unless there are objections I will file bugs of severity "normal" in a
>> few days for these packages.
> if, then a wishlist would be better. there are still functional bugs
>  that need a people having some free time...
>  http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/pet.cgi
I'm fine with that priority as well. It is not really urgent after all.
And I know the PET page quite well...