On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Sean M. Burke wrote:
> Someone (CPJL) just uploaded a dist to CPAN called HTML_Tree (in full,
> "HTML_Tree-1.2.3.tar.gz") including a module HTML::Tree. Am I the
> only one who thinks this risks confusion with me and Gisle Aas's
> preexisting HTML-Tree dist?
Unfortunately, there are only a finite number of things one can
call such a software package.
Originally, it was not my intent to submit this to CPAN at all;
but a number of people wrote me and prompted me to do it, so I
did.
Then I get e-mail from Randall stating that it would have a
wider audience if it had a top-leval Makefile.PL. I explained
that HTML Tree is first and foremost a C++ library that just so
happens to have a Perl and mod_merl set of bindings and that a
C++ user should have to have Perl just to compile the software.
His counter-suggestion was to tweak the package such that there
could be an optional Makefile.PL. That goes beyond my
expertise with MakeMaker to contort it to compiling something
that isn't Perl. But there would be other "tweaks" as well
like rewriting all the C++ documentation in POD (which I don't
think it shoudl be because then, again, it would require Perl
just to read the documentation). He then suggested I ask for a
volunteer from comp.lang.perl.modules. I might still do that,
but I've been really busy lately.
Then along comes this e-mail complaining about the name. Ugh.
I was perfectly happy *not* to submit it to CPAN in the first
place. Therefore, I really don't have the time, energy, or
inclination to "defend" the code's right to be in CPAN. I
really don't care. I write software that is useful to me. If
others can benefit from the work, great.
If the power that be at CPAN want to remove it, so be it.
- Paul
