Re: Correct package name for Perl bindings?
On Apr 3, 2010, at 13:59, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 12:50:55 +0100, TJ wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> Right, I supposed that was the point.
>
>> 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.
>
> At least apt-file search Hivex.pm would still work :)
>
> I guess it boils down the the angle -- from a Perl point of the
> having the dist name and the package name in sync makes it easier.
>
>> I don't object to the name but it just feels counter-intuitive to me.
>
> I see that point.
> Maybe someone else from the group has some additional thoughts?
I think it best to follow the explicit naming convention even while I agree that it doesn't necessarily 'feel' right. I think end users are best served this way. Developers who need a particular library have tools to find what they need, while end users often give up the search sooner. Also, automated tools will search in the 'official' debian namespace, i.e. they'll look for libfoo-bar-perl as opposed to libbar-perl, so that might be a vote for adhering to the naming convention as well.
Jeremiah
Reply to: