On Sat, Apr 03, 2010 at 12:50:55PM +0100, TJ wrote:
On Sat, 2010-04-03 at 13:42 +0200, gregor herrmann wrote:On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 08:54:13 +0100, TJ wrote:> However my mentor, Paul Wise, has suggested I ask here since Perl > Policy 4.2 suggests package name convention "...for module Foo::Bar > is libfoo-bar-perl."It's more than a suggestion, it's a "should" (i.e. "make it this way unless there are very good reasons to do it differently).> The project uses the Win::Hivex namespace.> That suggests the package name here should be "libwin-hivex-perl", > which doesn't 'feel' correct. Is "libhivex-perl" acceptable?AFAICS the dist name is Win::Hivex and it ships two modules Win::Hivex and Win::Hivex::Registry, so libwin-hivex-perl seems indeed like the logical candidate for the package name in my POV. Why do you think it doesn't "feel" correct?Mainly the difference in the binary package name from the other packages built from the source. the rest all being "libhivex" so "libwin-hivex" seems, at least in my mind, to disconnect the name-space for users.I know when I'm looking for packages using dpkg-query or apt-cache I usually assume/expect that related packages will have a common stub.I don't object to the name but it just feels counter-intuitive to me.
It sounds to me that perhaps you should then suggest upstream to rename, rather than hide upstream odd naming in a different packaging name.
I did that with the CipUX packages (which are not yet in CPAN but that is another issue) with success. But perhaps it also helped that I have developed a close friendship with that upstream author :-)
Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature