d. This would give the maintainer of
> WWW::Curl for debian the leeway to use a more sane package name and only
> provide libwww-curl-perl.
> - Convert all perl module packages to use names like perl-foo-bar, after
> the next stable release.
I'd be in favor of this, though, o
?
The Debian perl module naming scheme is badly designed. On other
discussions about this libwww-curl-perl thing, on debian-mentors and
later debian-perl, someone pointed out that a perl module named
C::Client would be libc-client-perl in Debian, which is horribly
confusing.
I'm glad that python is
At 8:49 pm, Monday, June 2 2003, Josip Rodin mumbled:
> I don't know exactly why it's done that way (it was introduced long before
> I ever became a Debian developer), but it's the scheme we use and we're
> keeping it, for consistency and backwards compatibility (we have almost
> 500 Perl modules
On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 10:57:07AM +0200, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> I'm sorry, but isn't that just a bit stupid? The "WWW::" part in the perl
> name doesn't make the package depend or use libwww. It says the package is
> in the WWW category.
>
> I think that makes sense.
The "lib" part in the Debi
to decide how to act on this. You know my
stand-point and you can find all the necessary details on all the discussed
packages on the curl site and elsewhere.
> > ONE of the packages (only present in unstable) has NOTHING to do with
> > libwww, and it is named libwww-curl-perl. W
the packages (only present in unstable) has NOTHING to do with libwww,
> and it is named libwww-curl-perl. Why?
It's because the Perl module is named WWW::Curl. Now, doing the whole
path-walking thing, I would presume that WWW::Curl would be some subclassing
from WWW for Curl. Now, the
ubject of this mail: "libwww-curl-perl".
This package is named using a prefix with a library that has nothing to do
with this package ("libwww"). If I go to www.debian.org/distrib/packages and
search for all the 'libwww' packages there are, I get to see 6 different ones
7 matches
Mail list logo
