On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 09:28:03AM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > Hi Gregor, > > On Sun, Feb 02, 2014 at 07:31:02PM +0100, gregor herrmann wrote: > > It's the package for the CPAN File::Rename distribution, and > > therefore named accordingly to > > https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names > > in Debian. > > Thanks for pointing me at that. It seems to me this makes sense for > libraries but not for end-user binaries. > > > (Cf. also > > http://pkg-perl.alioth.debian.org/policy.html#package_naming_policy ) > > This seems to agree since it suggests end-user binary packages should > not follow the libfoo-bar-perl scheme. > > [ as a side-note, if the perl group are following the latter, then > a minor-severity bug against policy to update the former to reflect > that practise sounds like it might be in order. I'll do this unless > anyone objects. ] > > I guess there are common situations where you have both an end-user > binary and a perl module in the same source, and you might not want > to split that into two binary packages (if they're very small or > something), however that doesn't appear to be the case here.
Yeah, I think I agree that this package should be named 'rename' since it will be predominantly used as an standalone utility rather than library. (I'm assuming noone is going to object to such a generic name). I'll file a new bug for that. Thanks, Dominic. -- 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/20140207230756.gl26...@urchin.earth.li
