On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 06:16:12PM +0200, gregor herrmann wrote: >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.
Ah, OK. :-( >> 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). OK. That would be nice... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com You lock the door And throw away the key There's someone in my head but it's not me -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110331124539.gb18...@einval.com
