On 4/6/15 8:48 PM, Xyne wrote:
On 2015-04-06 11:00 -0600 John D Jones III wrote:
I'm in favor of very minor user inconvenience (typing "perl-") if it leaves the package ecosystem systematically(/programmatically) consistent. The "redundancy" permits a direct translation of CPAN module names to package names without having to handle exceptions. It also avoids possible name collisions in the future, e.g. Perl::Foo and Foo.
Keep in mind as well that while it is trivial to convert a CPAN name to Pacman name without the redundancy (simple check for "perl-perl-"), the other way becomes more complicated if you have to query CPAN for "Foo" and "Perl::Foo" given a list of pacman package names.
I really don't want to introduce exceptions to a global rule just to remove 5 characters from a handful of package names. It isn't justifiable technically imo.
Regards, Xyne
I don't really have a big problem with perl-perl-$name per se, but some modules are known by their executable more so than the module name, perlcritic and perltidy being two examples of this, but I can see where having Perl::Foo and Foo causing problems. But I guess the scope should be for these modules such as perl-critic perl-tidy etc. Especially the packages that have been in the system since 2008 or older. I don't make any special case for modules, such as Perl::MinimumVersion, it got AUR name perl-perl-$etc, I just don't want someone out there thinking they're being helpful by taking Perl::Critic and creating a conflicting package with perl-perl-critic, since perl-critic has existed much longer and has 73 votes... this is just going to cause problems. If we're going to enforce perl-perl- for all AUR, then should it be enforced on the Official Repos as well? gtk2-perl? perl-tidy? glade-perl? etc? -- Thanks, John D Jones III UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover unixgeek1972@gmail.com jnbek1972@gmail.com http://zoelife4u.org/ Where Earth and Spirit Unite