On 11/19/10, Dagobert Michelsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Phil, > > Am 19.11.2010 um 20:07 schrieb Philip Brown: >>... >> If you feel so strongly about the 1 char inequality for perl packages, >> then perhaps instead you should adjust the perl naming spec ... >>.... >> Then you once again have full parity between catalog and PKG name. >> Plus it looks cleaner anyway. *and* matches what we are doing in other >> areas, such as python module naming. > > Generally I agree. But would you agree renaming all packages? Having > 80% old CSWpmabc packages and 20% new CSWpm-xyz packages seems to > be the worst solution to me, although I really favor using more > hyphens as it reduces ambiguity and eases reading.
perl modules seem to have a high rate of "churn". So I dont think this is a bad thing: they will probably get mostly refreshed over the course of the next 12 months anyway, I would guess, to approach 100% I think the added benefit of consistency with py_ modules, makes this the best choice. The renaming IS going to be horrible, and yes I will probably get sulky about it at times, because of the extra work that *I* will have to do as well. :-} But it is the right thing to do I think. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
