Xyne wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:19:08 -0500 Daenyth Blank <daenyth+arch@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 14:36, Cedric Staniewski <cedric@gmx.ca> wrote:
Hi, There are several packages in the AUR which provides exactly the same package as perl-libwww from extra does. Apparently, it is a pacpan related issue and therefore these packages are required by other ones. Deleting them is likely no solution as they will get uploaded again by another pacpan user.
Cedric
=> perl-http-headers http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25730
=> perl-http-request http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25736
=> perl-http-response http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25735
=> perl-lwp-simple http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=27566
=> perl-lwp-useragent http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25734
I'm going to cc this to xyne
Thanks.
This is because perl-libwww only provides libwww-perl in the PKGBUILD when in it actually provides over 50 modules/packages. I'll open a ticket on the bug tracker and then take care of the listed pacakges in the AUR.
I'll post any updates here.
Thanks. I thought about that again and am curious if there is a name convention for CPAN source files. It might make sense to set pkgname to 'perl-' the name of the source file (lowercase and without version and suffix, of course) by default in pacpan generated PKGBUILDs, even though libwww is an exception again.
Perhaps this would be a good opportunity to ask everyone packaging CPAN modules to at least look at the provides string generated by pacpan. It cross-references all names with their associated source files to generate a comprehensive list.
They should definitely look at the PKGBUILD before uploading them. I have seen provide arrays with items like 'modulename=undef' and there is a new license introduced by these PKGBUILDs called '~'. But that is the drawback of such tools; they make it so easy to generate PKGBUILDs and thus you get quantity but often less quality.
Regards, Xyne