On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 07:37:33PM -0500, Duncan Findlay wrote: > As I understand the perl-policy, all packages that contain perl modules are > to be named in the form libfoo-bar-perl. I'm working on a program called > SpamAssassin. While it contains perl modules, its primary purpose is for > its scripts. Furthermore, it contains one binary written in C, so it can't > be Arch: all. > > Do I name it libmail-spamassassin-perl, or do I name it spamassassin, or do > I have to split the scripts from the modules (I don't see any point of > that).
If the modules can be useful without the binary _and_ the binary is large, it might be usefulto split it. But if the package does not consist purely of perl modules, but just contains them, it cannot be called a "perl library package" so there's no point in naming it libfoo-perl. I'm no expert, though :-) Marcin -- Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://marcin.owsiany.pl/ GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6 3A0D 8AA0 60F4 1216 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
