Steve Kowalik wrote: > At 8:49 pm, Monday, June 2 2003, Josip Rodin mumbled: > > I don't know exactly why it's done that way (it was introduced long before > > I ever became a Debian developer), but it's the scheme we use and we're > > keeping it, for consistency and backwards compatibility (we have almost > > 500 Perl modules packaged right now). > > > Speaking of such, Perl and Java use the same scheme. But Python doesn't, > which irks me. Surely liblinda-python would be more desirable rather than > python-linda? The Debian perl module naming scheme is badly designed. On other discussions about this libwww-curl-perl thing, on debian-mentors and later debian-perl, someone pointed out that a perl module named C::Client would be libc-client-perl in Debian, which is horribly confusing. I'm glad that python is (mostly) using a more sane naming scheme. It's also rather useful to be able to type apt-get install python-<tab> and get python modules tab completed. The only thing the perl module naming scheme has going for it is inertia. I would like to see two things: - Policy proposal #114920 be accepted. This would give the maintainer of WWW::Curl for debian the leeway to use a more sane package name and only provide libwww-curl-perl. - Convert all perl module packages to use names like perl-foo-bar, after the next stable release. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
pgpo1SZONjtr0.pgp
Description: PGP signature