On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 00:58:12 -0200, Martín Ferrari wrote:
On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording
and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it
one way or the other.
Packages which contain perl modules should provide virtual packages
that correspond to the primary module or modules in the package. The
naming convention is that for module 'Foo::Bar', the package should
provide 'libfoo-bar-perl'. This may be used as the package's name if
Russ Allbery wrote:
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with
wording and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and
resolve it one way or the other.
There's some room for clarification here.
I think it is apparent from comments given in 2001 the that
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily
intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing
the binary package naming, maybe we can decide whether the mandate should
be extended to the _source_
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it primarily
intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while we're discussing
the binary package naming, maybe we
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
I think that from the final sentence it can be inferred that it
primarily intends to mandate the _binary_ package name. So while
we're discussing the binary package naming, maybe we can decide
whether the mandate should be
On Wed, 02 Jan 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 03:46:02PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
Unless there's a compelling reason to the contrary, a source
package should in general build at least one binary package of the
same name. This is definetly the case when the source
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008, Julian Mehnle wrote:
According to a simple survey of the packages in Lenny/amd64 (main,
contrib, non-free), 2365 of the 11757 source packages (20%!) have no
binary package of the same name. 814 of these (7% of all) have only
a single binary package. Wanna mass-file bugs?
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording
and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it
one way or the other.
Since this is a change to the Perl packaging policy, specifically for Perl
modules, I'm cc'ing the debian-perl list, as the
Hi,
On Jan 2, 2008 12:28 AM, Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a Policy proposal that's sat in the Policy bug queue with wording
and seconds for quite some time. I'd like to resurrect it and resolve it
one way or the other.
I think the proposal is a good technical solution to the
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herbert Xu wrote:
I object. Until versioned provides work reliably, doing this prevents
any use of versioned dependencies on such packages which may come back
to haunt us.
If something needs to declare a versioned dependency, it need only use
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
jh == Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jh Proposal:
jh Replace section 3.2 of the perl sub-policy included with Debian policy
jh with the following text:
jh Packages which contain perl modules should provide virtual packages
Package: debian-policy
Rationalle:
Perl policy currently dictates that a perl module package have a name of
the form lib-foo-bar-perl, where foo-bar maps to Foo:Bar in the perl
module name. This is resulting in a lot of very large and awkward
package names -- the worst ofender so far is the
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Proposal:
Replace section 3.2 of the perl sub-policy included with Debian policy
with the following text:
Packages which contain perl modules should provide virtual packages
that correspond to the primary module or modules in the package. The
Herbert Xu wrote:
I object. Until versioned provides work reliably, doing this prevents
any use of versioned dependencies on such packages which may come back
to haunt us.
If something needs to declare a versioned dependency, it need only use
the package's real name in the dependency. There
On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 06:56:30PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Raising the specter of versioned provides sure is a nice way to kill any
forward progress at all, ain't it?
What do you think we have Herbert Xu around for?
--
G. Branden Robinson| The greatest productive force is
16 matches
Mail list logo
