Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
On Nov 30, 2007 11:04 AM, Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:38:13PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: I am for renaming (plus a transitional package). So am I, the existence of MIME/Tools.pm tips the scales for me. FWIW, I think it makes sense to rename both the source and the binary package in the same go. Maybe it's not worth the effort to put it in the NEW queue... that's really only cosmetic. In any case, I don't have a strong opinion against it. -- Martín Ferrari
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:38:13PM +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: I am for renaming (plus a transitional package). So am I, the existence of MIME/Tools.pm tips the scales for me. FWIW, I think it makes sense to rename both the source and the binary package in the same go. After bugging maintainers to change their (Build-)Depends, we can file an RM bug for libmime-perl (then dummy) package on ftp.debian.org. This would take months. I am wondering if we can use an exception from the policy here :) There's no hurry with this. We need the transitional libmime-perl package present in lenny anyway so that there's an upgrade path for the users. Currently this would mean 30+ 'minor' (or 'normal') bugs on the dependending packages, which is a mass bug filing. So we need an announcement on debian-devel, which will probably reduce the number of bugs somewhat. After lenny we would stop building the transitional package and raise the severity of the remaining bugs to 'serious'. I don't think an RM bug is needed at that point; sourceless binary packages are removed semi-automatically. Cheers, -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
-=| Julian Mehnle, Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:34:38AM + |=-
Niko Tyni wrote:
I'm still not sure if it's worth it to rename, though.
Gregor Herrmann wrote:
Considering the arguments with versioned dependencies I'm inclined to
propose to stick with the current name.
Cost: This would be a one-time action, and we can easily supply a dummy
libmime-perl binary package that depends on the renamed binary package
for backwards compatibility.
Benefit: Less confusion for all users searching for the package providing
MIME-tools / MIME::Tools in the future.
I am for renaming (plus a transitional package).
If we want to get rid of the transitional package, here's how to get the
list of packages, depending on libmime-perl, by maintainer
$ apt-cache rdepends libmime-perl|grep '^ '|sed 's/[ |]//g'|sort|uniq|dd-list
--stdin --nou
(36 packages; 4 of them - ours; 28 distinct maintainers)
And here's the same for Build-Depending (replace ${mirror} with your
mirror):
$ grep-dctrl -F Build-Depends,Build-Depends-Indep -r libmime-perl -s
Source:Package
/var/lib/apt/lists/${mirror}_debian_dists_sid_main_source_Sources|sed
's/Source: //'|dd-list --stdin --nou
(9 packages; 5 of them ours; 5 maintainers)
After bugging maintainers to change their (Build-)Depends, we can file an RM bug
for libmime-perl (then dummy) package on ftp.debian.org.
This would take months. I am wondering if we can use an exception from
the policy here :)
--
damJabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 08:15:28PM +0100, Julian Mehnle wrote: (Sorry for the delay.) Package: libmime-perl Version: 5.417-1 Severity: wishlist The CPAN package is named MIME-tools, so following the unofficial naming convention for Debian Perl packages, the Debian package should probably really be named libmime-tools-perl. Quoting the Debian Perl Policy: 4.2 Module 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. There is actually no real primary module in the MIME-Tools distribution, and I suppose 'libmime-perl' (which dates back to 1997) can be seen as an approximation. For a fresh start, I'd probably go with mime-tools-perl as both the source and the binary package name. However, I don't think this is worth the hassle of renaming. (If the name is changed, just Providing libmime-perl isn't enough because there are versioned dependencies in the archive. So we'd need a transitional libmime-perl package depending on the new package name.) I'm inclined to tag this 'wontfix', but I'd appreciate opinions from other members of the Debian Perl Group, the current mime-tools maintainer. Cheers, -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 09:27:47PM +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: There is actually no real primary module in the MIME-Tools distribution, and I suppose 'libmime-perl' (which dates back to 1997) can be seen as an approximation. Hm, I only now realized that there really *is* a MIME::Tools module, which is just a frontend for configuring the logging and debugging of the other modules. Since it also contains the primary documentation, I suppose it could be viewed as the primary module, and the name of the binary package should indeed be libmime-tools-perl. I'm still not sure if it's worth it to rename, though. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers, -- Niko Tyni [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:58:37 +0200, Niko Tyni wrote: Since it also contains the primary documentation, I suppose it could be viewed as the primary module, and the name of the binary package should indeed be libmime-tools-perl. I'm still not sure if it's worth it to rename, though. Considering the arguments with versioned dependencies I'm inclined to propose to stick with the current name. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
Niko Tyni wrote: I'm still not sure if it's worth it to rename, though. Gregor Herrmann wrote: Considering the arguments with versioned dependencies I'm inclined to propose to stick with the current name. Cost: This would be a one-time action, and we can easily supply a dummy libmime-perl binary package that depends on the renamed binary package for backwards compatibility. Benefit: Less confusion for all users searching for the package providing MIME-tools / MIME::Tools in the future. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Bug#297765: Package should be named libmime-tools-perl, not libmime-perl
Package: libmime-perl Version: 5.417-1 Severity: wishlist The CPAN package is named MIME-tools, so following the unofficial naming convention for Debian Perl packages, the Debian package should probably really be named libmime-tools-perl. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
