On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Brian S. Julin wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jun 1997, Christian Schwarz wrote: > > I think this naming scheme is quite reasonable. What does everyone else > > think about it? > > What do you do if you do have a package turn up with an underscore > in its name?
We could easily replace it with a dash (-). > > (I'm definitely against having more special characters in file names, as > > `+' or `:'.) > > Personally I think it would be best to change the module name as > little as possible. '+' and ':' were at some point legal for package > names, according to deb-make's error messages and behavior. Perhaps > we should just ask a dpkg pro? I would not like to have these special characters in file names. Let us try to stick to the current "set of legal characters". > > This sounds as you've set up a "default procedure" of how to pack CPAN's > > module into .deb's. Great! I always thought of something like that but I > > never had time to do so. > > Yes, I'm working on it at least. My next step is to add pod2html calls > so the Debian policy on using HTML when possible is satisfied. I am > doing this with an architecture subclass MM module for ExtUtils::MakeMaker > and a few very minor changes to MakeMaker.pm itself. You can examine > the work-in-progress at http://calyx.com/~bri/projects/Debian/ I did not yet have time to look at your page. However, this sounds great! IMHO, we should try to get all stuff of CPAN into debs--and this should be highly automized. And of course, every package should provide HTML docs. > One of the goals here is for the packages to smartly determine > which other perl packages they depend upon by examining the > 'use' and 'require' statements and such. This is already partly > done by MakeMaker, in fact there is an ALPHA test extension that > goes to the CPAN ftp archive to retrieve files you are lacking > automatically. All I need to to is harness the results of the > functions they are using for debian's purposes. > > However I will end up with a major headache if I cannot reliably > map perl module names to debian package names. I'd prefer it to > be pretty, but definitely need it to be functional. It's bad enough > that the case-folding runs me the risk of collisions between module > names. What is your problem exactly? We could easily change our standard to "cpan-xxx.deb", for example. > > Since CPAN's modules all apply to a certain "standard" (i.e. all makefiles > > have the same structure) such a default procedure is definitely a good > > thing. (Perhaps we could add this functionality to deb-make. If it > > discovers a CPAN module it could set up everything for the maintainer > > automatically and he/she would just have to fill in the description, etc.) > > Yes, I was thinking that my MM_Debian_Linux.pm file could be distributed > in the deb-make package. > > Answer me a question -- I see a lot of newer debian packages using > "./debian/stamp-build" as the stamp target yet deb-make and > dpkg-buildpackage seem to like to touch and clean "./build", which I > suppose is obsolete behavior. I note though that the "hello" package > still uses it. Is there a good example of a modern debian/rules > file available? I'd be willing to mail the maintainer of deb-make > a patch to modernize it. I don't know of such a change. However, the "hello" package is still the one that should be used as reference if you are in doubt. Note, that the "deb-make" package is still a bit "unofficial", though it is really useful! Cheers, Chris -- Christian Schwarz Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Debian GNU/Linux? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA http://www.debian.org http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/ -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
