On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 10:40 PM, Jeremiah Dodds
wrote:
>
> I'd assume it was a library for interfacing with spamassasin from perl code.
bingo ...
- == binding/interface/bridge/etc/etc ... this is the
defacto scheme that extends far beyond cpan.
i would have naturally thought the same thing, and
2011/3/8 Ángel Velásquez
>
> I share your opinion.
>
> -1 to that proposal, users of spamassasin doesn't even know that
> spamassasin is coded on perl .
>
>
Another -1 from me. If I saw a package called perl-mail-spamassasin, I'd
assume it was a library for interfacing with spamassasin from perl
2011/3/9 Auguste Pop :
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, 郑文辉 wrote:
>> Hey,guys
>>
>> I have several thoughts about perl packages packing standards.
>>
>> First,It seems to me that renaming spamassassin to
>> perl-mail-spamassassin which following the cpan perl packages naming
>> standard is bett
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, 郑文辉 wrote:
> Hey,guys
>
> I have several thoughts about perl packages packing standards.
>
> First,It seems to me that renaming spamassassin to
> perl-mail-spamassassin which following the cpan perl packages naming
> standard is better.May be we can add a feature t
Hey,guys
I have several thoughts about perl packages packing standards.
First,It seems to me that renaming spamassassin to
perl-mail-spamassassin which following the cpan perl packages naming
standard is better.May be we can add a feature to PKGBULD that
allowing package have several alias.Ex,per
5 matches
Mail list logo