On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, 郑文辉 <techlivezheng@gmail.com> 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 to PKGBULD that allowing package have several alias.Ex,perl-mail-spamassassin should be the official name and spamassassin could be the common name or aliase.Both official name and standard name can be installed or qureied using pacman,but official name mostly used in programing and official posts.
Spamassassin is used as a daemon, which happens to use perl. If it is not necessarily used as a perl module, why should we rename it into perl-something? Should we rename all c packages into c-* and bash scripts into bash-*?
Second,the URL variable of perl package's PKGBUILD should be restriced to cpan permanent urls (like:http://search.cpan.org/dist/*) even if the project has its own home page,and the cpan will link to the project's real homepage if exits.
And I don't think using CPAN as the package main page URL is a good way if the package upstream has its own page. CPAN is downstream compared to the package's own page. I am not an Arch developer. This is simply my own opinion. Best Regards,