On 4/6/15 8:48 PM, Xyne wrote:
On 2015-04-06 11:00 -0600
John D Jones III wrote:
I'm in favor of very minor user inconvenience (typing "perl-") if it leaves the
package ecosystem systematically(/programmatically) consistent. The
"redundancy" permits a direct translation of CPAN module names to package names
without having to handle exceptions. It also avoids possible name collisions in
the future, e.g. Perl::Foo and Foo.
Keep in mind as well that while it is trivial to convert a CPAN name to Pacman
name without the redundancy (simple check for "perl-perl-"), the other way
becomes more complicated if you have to query CPAN for "Foo" and "Perl::Foo"
given a list of pacman package names.
I really don't want to introduce exceptions to a global rule just to remove 5
characters from a handful of package names. It isn't justifiable technically
imo.
Regards,
Xyne
I don't really have a big problem with perl-perl-$name per se, but some
modules are known by their executable more so than the module name,
perlcritic and perltidy being two examples of this, but I can see where
having Perl::Foo and Foo causing problems. But I guess the scope should
be for these modules such as perl-critic perl-tidy etc. Especially the
packages that have been in the system since 2008 or older. I don't make
any special case for modules, such as Perl::MinimumVersion, it got AUR
name perl-perl-$etc, I just don't want someone out there thinking
they're being helpful by taking Perl::Critic and creating a conflicting
package with perl-perl-critic, since perl-critic has existed much longer
and has 73 votes... this is just going to cause problems. If we're going
to enforce perl-perl- for all AUR, then should it be enforced on the
Official Repos as well? gtk2-perl? perl-tidy? glade-perl? etc?
--
Thanks,
John D Jones III
UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://zoelife4u.org/
Where Earth and Spirit Unite
