On Fri, 30 May 2003 22:34:01 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As far as some kind of quicker fix goes, I proposed some time ago
that policy be amended to let the libfoo-bar-perl just be provided
by the package, if it made better sense to use something else for
the package name.
On Fri, 30 May 2003 22:34:01 -0400, Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
As far as some kind of quicker fix goes, I proposed some time ago
that policy be amended to let the libfoo-bar-perl just be provided
by the package, if it made better sense to use something else for
the package name.
I really think this should go to the debian-perl list so I'm sending it
there. The libc-include-perl example below is one of the best arguments
I've seen for changing the perl module naming scheme. It's a pity that
we didn't think it through more before deciding on it. IIRC we just took
the
At 09:27 29/05/2003 +0200, you wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:44:22AM -0400, Deedra Waters wrote:
[...]
| If you look at the packages description, you will see thatit says This
| module provides the Perl bindings to libcurl. In the description it
| tells what the package is.
| Could the
José Luis Tallón [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would probably be easier for th users if the name-mangling yielded
libperl-curl-easy or libperl-www-curl instead of the current one...
...any reasons for doing it otherwise i have overlooked ?
Debian Perl Policy is quite specific: Foo::Bar should
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
José Luis Tallón [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would probably be easier for th users if the name-mangling yielded
libperl-curl-easy or libperl-www-curl instead of the current one...
...any reasons for doing it otherwise i have overlooked ?
Debian Perl Policy is quite
I really think this should go to the debian-perl list so I'm sending it
there. The libc-include-perl example below is one of the best arguments
I've seen for changing the perl module naming scheme. It's a pity that
we didn't think it through more before deciding on it. IIRC we just took
the
I'm including the messages below, because I'm hoping that maybe one of
you can help me figure out how to respond to the upstream authors on
this Basically the problem seems to be that they are very unhappy with
the way that debian is naming perl modules, and I'm getting to a point,
where I am no
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:44:22AM -0400, Deedra Waters wrote:
[...]
| If you look at the packages description, you will see thatit says This
| module provides the Perl bindings to libcurl. In the description it
| tells what the package is.
| Could the description at least explicitly
At 09:27 29/05/2003 +0200, you wrote:
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 12:44:22AM -0400, Deedra Waters wrote:
[...]
| If you look at the packages description, you will see thatit says This
| module provides the Perl bindings to libcurl. In the description it
| tells what the package is.
| Could
José Luis Tallón [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would probably be easier for th users if the name-mangling yielded
libperl-curl-easy or libperl-www-curl instead of the current one...
...any reasons for doing it otherwise i have overlooked ?
Debian Perl Policy is quite specific: Foo::Bar should
Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
José Luis Tallón [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It would probably be easier for th users if the name-mangling yielded
libperl-curl-easy or libperl-www-curl instead of the current one...
...any reasons for doing it otherwise i have overlooked ?
Debian Perl Policy is quite
12 matches
Mail list logo
