-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Hello,
Still a little new to TU work :)
There are two packages, 'perl-rename' and 'prename'. Both provide the same software. 'prename' is out-of-date and orphaned, but IMO has a nicer name, and is much more well-known (votes). 'perl-rename' is lesser known, but maintained and up-to-date.
I'm thinking I should advise the 'perl-rename' maintainer to take over 'prename' with their PKGBUILD, and then delete 'perl-rename', does anyone not agree?
Thanks! -- Ranguvar [Devin Cofer]
And make prename `replace=('perl-rename')`
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 23:43, Ranguvar ranguvar@archlinux.us wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
Hello,
Still a little new to TU work :)
There are two packages, 'perl-rename' and 'prename'. Both provide the same software. 'prename' is out-of-date and orphaned, but IMO has a nicer name, and is much more well-known (votes). 'perl-rename' is lesser known, but maintained and up-to-date.
I'm thinking I should advise the 'perl-rename' maintainer to take over 'prename' with their PKGBUILD, and then delete 'perl-rename', does anyone not agree?
Thanks! -- Ranguvar [Devin Cofer] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.13 (GNU/Linux)
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJLJcGiAAoJEHdXKOHe3MUTej0P/0amLrZP9I7QvPrthgSlfjlc tbWTr3wRzc+tE7nszpemWX8w1mgM2Ln4St3/8RQqXBlhFPX1hQF6gLT1n6bvMr05 U/iupcb8qgBVfy1SXI6uX5luoh7nZxtBv9ZU6ayvdFNymD3pkCPZ+yYQpO7ZQghZ DEugkX1EUBkS0oZTQjyyNZ8HTFXi+8/NI4sbsNmuwb7vvehAPuKpaArIJ+Fz5d+n Ydt47pjmOXPoC2sXqYm5RJRe5H9ZysAf2Byc0gJCSbn4XXmuIMehBIpBl7ggYufU rMZsPlY8n3fxlIlhzeoUC+EK4MhPysXcuYdWlkyn4CCEZSq1ALNQWirZbO0482Fq cmAIEzyOaB/RXDuxCuCLT0MBZ0aEznpCFNM5c9FudPXyk26grnxax+rIbvi1obhU bXBTVfu3UNI0YcPVwusgCdypA/UleHF8idihTcCVuWBEFMR4w3plP/DvL/hOhJZf Dwe4ex/TNSRc1vtXgtEBBVIxjaAC745GjlbiOd+pGg69tai57JL0ZyM2OdVIWWc8 S8cJ8LhDIAwxnlGmknu46KF59h4ZQSxAexJ84JBpQEHuypn2uVNcSEiVI0Nju59v 5kwR6z6PsdxGa+V3wDb2+O6IgT6G9qCtWrN9gog4905StG0xZJlFlAj7nxiGgQVW PkivYghw0vcNirqD7SMG =Ygln -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello,
Still a little new to TU work :)
There are two packages, 'perl-rename' and 'prename'. Both provide the same software. 'prename' is out-of-date and orphaned, but IMO has a nicer name, and is much more well-known (votes). 'perl-rename' is lesser known, but maintained and up-to-date.
I'm thinking I should advise the 'perl-rename' maintainer to take over 'prename' with their PKGBUILD, and then delete 'perl-rename', does anyone not agree?
Thanks! -- Ranguvar
Are they really the same? One is a CPAN module while the other comes from Debian. If the Debian version is just an extract from a package which includes the CPAN module then I would agree as it is much more KISS to grab it directly from CPAN.
Regards, Xyne
On 2009-12-13 at 23:43 -0500, Ranguvar wrote:
I'm thinking I should advise the 'perl-rename' maintainer to take over 'prename' with their PKGBUILD, and then delete 'perl-rename', does anyone not agree?
As the maintainer of perl-rename let me defend myself. :)
On 2009-12-15 at 17:11 +0100, Xyne wrote:
Are they really the same?
No, they aren't. They are both based on the same script by Larry Wall and therefore are quite similar. However (perl-)rename on CPAN is more up-to-date and has some additional functionality and command line options. From what I can see prename is only distributed with Debian's Perl package and doesn't have a CPAN/web presence on its own.
The original maintainer of prename probably chose the name "prename" in order to avoid name clashes with /usr/bin/rename from util-linux-ng.
Nevertheless I adopted and updated prename to Debian's newest version. But as perl-rename provides all of prename's functionality and more and is better maintained I suggest deleting prename. I don't care so much about the votes but I for my part prefer the name "perl-rename" as it is more unambiguous than "prename". Unfortunately "rename" was already taken. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160
Well and I thought the general naming convention of cpan modules would be to prefix them with perl- anyway; isn't that the case? If that is so, then perl-rename would make more sense to me.
But then again, I'm sorta new around these parts <smile>.
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 04:50:06PM +0100, Sebastian Schwarz wrote:
On 2009-12-13 at 23:43 -0500, Ranguvar wrote:
I'm thinking I should advise the 'perl-rename' maintainer to take over 'prename' with their PKGBUILD, and then delete 'perl-rename', does anyone not agree?
As the maintainer of perl-rename let me defend myself. :)
On 2009-12-15 at 17:11 +0100, Xyne wrote:
Are they really the same?
No, they aren't. They are both based on the same script by Larry Wall and therefore are quite similar. However (perl-)rename on CPAN is more up-to-date and has some additional functionality and command line options. From what I can see prename is only distributed with Debian's Perl package and doesn't have a CPAN/web presence on its own.
The original maintainer of prename probably chose the name "prename" in order to avoid name clashes with /usr/bin/rename from util-linux-ng.
Nevertheless I adopted and updated prename to Debian's newest version. But as perl-rename provides all of prename's functionality and more and is better maintained I suggest deleting prename. I don't care so much about the votes but I for my part prefer the name "perl-rename" as it is more unambiguous than "prename". Unfortunately "rename" was already taken. :)
Steve Holmes wrote:
Well and I thought the general naming convention of cpan modules would be to prefix them with perl- anyway; isn't that the case? If that is so, then perl-rename would make more sense to me.
Prefixing is the convention when packaging a library for a language other than C/C++. E.G., perl-term-readkey, python-sqlalchemy, ruby-hpricot, et cetera. perl-rename isn't a library, but it does come from CPAN. It makes sense to hold onto the perl- prefix. Considering all of the other comments that I've seen about prename, it's probably worth deleting.
-- Chris
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org