On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote: > > I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily > > intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing > > the binary package naming, maybe we can decide whether the mandate should > > be extended to the _source_ package name as well while we're at it, and > > clarify the Perl policy to explicitly state whether or not the source > > package name is covered by the policy's recommendation.
> Unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary, a source package > should in general build at least one binary package of the same name. > This is definetly the case when the source package only builds one > binary package. Not that this is applicable to perl packages, but one very common reason for this to not be the case is that the package is a library... In that case, it's beneficial to have continuity of the source package name whereas the binary package name will change periodically. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
