David Paleino wrote: > Julian Mehnle wrote: > > Package: wnpp > > Severity: wishlist > > Owner: Julian Mehnle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > * Package name : mail-spf-perl > > as per Debian Perl Policy, the package should be named libmail-spf-perl.
You are probably referring to 4.2, "Module Package Names": http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/perl-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names | Perl module packages should be named for the primary module provided. | The naming convention for module Foo::Bar is libfoo-bar-perl. Packages | which include multiple modules may additionally include provides for | those modules using the same convention. The last sentence indicates that this paragraph really just talks about binary package names, not source package names, as only binary packages, not source ones, do "Provide:" other packages. This also allows existing source packages to be named "mime-tools", "soap-lite", and "timedate", while their corresponding binary packages are conformingly named "libmime-perl", "libsoap-lite-perl", and "libtimedate- perl". Thus I think it is perfectly legitimate to name the _source_ package "mail-spf-perl". > > The source package would generate two binary packages: > > libmail-spf-perl and spf-tools-perl, the latter of which would ship > > the executables included with the Mail::SPF upstream package > > (currently spfquery and spfd). > > This could let you name your package mail-spf-perl: there's a > discussion about this on [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Please > take a look at the archives. (In two words: one could name the source > package other than lib*-perl if it brings something other than the Perl > Module -- as the spf-tools in this case -- but not everyone agrees) FWIW, I am the one who initiated that thread. > You could join the Debian Perl Group, I am already a member of the DPG, thanks. Julian.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
