Re: Naming policy for Perl modules (mass bug filing)

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:04:58PM +0900, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

Jozef Kutej <jo...@kutej.net> writes:

Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

the Debian Perl Policy asks for packages for the Foo::Bar module to be

Perl module packages *should* be named... :)

 "Non-conformance with guidelines denoted by should (or recommended)
 will generally be considered a bug, but will not necessarily render a
 package unsuitable for distribution."

I don't object to naming packages differently if there is a reason to do
so, but fail to see one for these packages (except for perlmagick which
is also the upstream name as noted by Bastien ROUCARIES [1]).

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2010/03/msg00706.html

 - Jonas

--
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

What is so special about Perlmagick? I do not know of *any* upstream project named lib*-perl, so same argument would be true for most Perl module packages, I believe.

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature