On 12/11/2007, Johan Vromans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Eric Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > App:: is already used for 'things which support > > applications'. > > Which, we agreed, would not get in the way of real applications. >
I'm embarrased to say that lately I've been chucking some of my stuff (pler and pip) into pragma-like packages, just so that on the command line you can say > cpan --install pler ... and it just Does What You Mean. I have this ugly suspicion, however, that we aren't going to solve this problem with yet another namespace. When it comes to command line apps, part of our problem comes from downstream with the distro packagers. If we end up with something like... > apt-get install libbin-foo-perl ... instead of just ... > apt-get install foo ... it is just going to look even MORE stupid than libapp-foo-perl is currently. And lets face it, the primary audience for command line apps and such are people using distribution packaging systems. I think any solution to the "program package" MUST factor in downstream binary packages. I have no good ideas in this area though, not that are back-portable at least. Thoughts?
