On Thu, 08 Dec 2016 08:44:15 -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > While you are in there, there is #816693, also I'm unsure (and offline > > atm) how many perl6 packages we currently have. > As far as I can tell, we have 2 such packages: perl6 and perl6-panda.
See my other mail. > We have several packages named libperl6-*, but reading their > descriptions, they actually provide modules for perl5 that emulate perl6 > functionality, so the package names seem incorrect. No. perl5 modules named FOO::BAR are packages as libFOO-BAR-perl, and in this case we have perl5 modules named Perl6::Something, so this naming just follows the Debian Perl Policy, even if it looks a bit strange. Perl6 packages are/will be named perl6-*. > Python 2 and 3 packages both use the "python" section, and distinguish > packages by package name (python-* versus python3-*); might it make > sense to just use the "perl" section, and distinguish modules for perl5 > versus perl6 by package name? I don't think so. perl5 and perl6 are "sister languages" but you can't run perl5 code under perl6 or vice versa (ignoring some fancy hacks) and you can't build a perl5 and perl6 variant from the same source etc. In my understanding, python3 is, despite some incompatibilities, the successor / next version of python(2); perl 6 is a new language from the same family, but not the next version/successor of perl5. Cheers, gregor, cc'ing the knowledegable people :) -- .''`. https://info.comodo.priv.at/ - Debian Developer https://www.debian.org : :' : OpenPGP fingerprint D1E1 316E 93A7 60A8 104D 85FA BB3A 6801 8649 AA06 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe `- NP: Sting: Englishman in New York
signature.asc
Description: Digital Signature
