On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> wrote:
On 2011-04-16 12:02 -0400 (15:6) Dave Reisner wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:57:33AM -0400, Justin Davis wrote:
Please delete perl-docs. I would like to resubmit it and rename it to perldocs. This is trivial, of course, but it bugs me. Packages for perl modules are prefixed with perl- but perl-docs is simply the documentation for perl and not a "Docs" module. The file it downloads is named perldoc and there is a command for reading installed perl documentation called perldoc so it seems more appropriate to call the package perldocs.
I know it sounds crazy! Please humor me! Here is the link: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22294
Thanks, Justin (aka aurperl)
Consider yourself humored.
dave
It should probably be called perl-perldoc if you want to be rigorous, i.e. all Perl packages should be prefixed with "perl-" regardless if they begin with "perl" themselves.
It makes it easier to write tools for Perl package management.
That is what I do for modules but the whole point is to differentiate these docs from modules and avoid package name clashes. For example, there is a module named Perldoc on CPAN. If I called the package for these docs "perl-perldoc" like you suggest then that conflicts with the package name of the Perldoc module, should someone want to upload it to the AUR and name it, properly, "perl-perldoc". The perldocs are just documentation, they don't even depend on perl, so they are not perl packages in the same sense that packages of perl modules are perl packages. They are perldocs, just like the perldoc command, just like the perldoc website. Naming conventions for modules do not need apply, and can actually cause problems as I mentioned above. Really, a different naming scheme makes automation easier (avoiding a headache) because it is now not possible to accidentally confuse perl-docs with a module named Docs on the AUR, based solely on the names of packages. PS thanks dave! -- -Justin