On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:56:22 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > >Right, that's certainly true for the lib.*-perl packages, and I > >wouldn't know how we should rename them in a sane way. > In the worst case that I'm looking at, I'm a little surprised by the > names here on two fronts: > libcgi-application-basic-plugin-bundle-perl_0.5.orig-CGI-Application-Plugin-ValidateRM-2-3.tar.gz > 1. Why the "bundle" ? Because the ftp-masters don't (or at least didn't) want small packages in the archive. From the packaging point of view we'd split them up immediately if that was ok for them. Cf. #606411. > 2. Why such a silly long name? What will happen if somebody comes > along with another perl module to add to this bundle, but with a > name twice as long? Does the source name for this tarball have to > contain the whole of the bundle name? As far as I understand source format v3 with multiple upstream tarballs, the first part (up to .orig) can't be changed as it needs to be the same as for the "main" package. [0] The second part (the component) name is free-form, and as I said earlier, here's a bit of room for us to shorten it (in this case e.g. from CGI-Application-Plugin-ValidateRM-2-3 to ValidateRM). Cheers, gregor [0] Although in this case the package name itself is made up and could be shortend from libcgi-application-basic-plugin-bundle-perl to something like libcgi-application-plugins-perl. -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG key IDs: 0x8649AA06, 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: David Bowie: Tvc 15
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature