[aur-general] Perl pkgbuild and module names beginning with Perl::
There are some perl modules, like Perl::Critic that are packaged as perl-critic in AUR. I am the maintainer for a number of these modules and I'd like some clarity. It seems a bit redundant to have a pkgbuild named: perl-perl-critic and cpan2aur actually filters this particular module's name and truncates it to perl-critic. I personally only have 2 redundantly named modules, but there's another user who is adding modules that have existed as perl-$name for years as perl-perl-$name. To set an example, take the gtk2 module in Extra or glade-perl. These in CPAN are just Gtk2 or Glade respectively, Some utils are known simply by the executable used, it's perltidy or perlcritic. People searching AUR etc for these modules shouldn't have to deal with perl-perl-tidy perl-perl-critic when the accepted program names are perl-tidy perl-critic etc. If I'm wrong here, then by all means, let the flame begin, but if it's agreed that I am correct here, let us update the wiki article to reflect the exceptions to the perl-$fulldistname statement found: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_package_guidelines and let us merge the rogue pkgbuilds into the proper locations. It just seems unnecessarily redundant having perl modules with the name perl in the CPAN module name to have perl-perl- in the AUR. -- Thanks, John D Jones III UNIX Zealot; Perl Lover unixgeek1972@gmail.com jnbek1972@gmail.com http://zoelife4u.org/ Where Earth and Spirit Unite
On 2015-04-06 11:00 -0600 John D Jones III wrote:
There are some perl modules, like Perl::Critic that are packaged as perl-critic in AUR. I am the maintainer for a number of these modules and I'd like some clarity. It seems a bit redundant to have a pkgbuild named: perl-perl-critic and cpan2aur actually filters this particular module's name and truncates it to perl-critic. I personally only have 2 redundantly named modules, but there's another user who is adding modules that have existed as perl-$name for years as perl-perl-$name. To set an example, take the gtk2 module in Extra or glade-perl. These in CPAN are just Gtk2 or Glade respectively, Some utils are known simply by the executable used, it's perltidy or perlcritic. People searching AUR etc for these modules shouldn't have to deal with perl-perl-tidy perl-perl-critic when the accepted program names are perl-tidy perl-critic etc. If I'm wrong here, then by all means, let the flame begin, but if it's agreed that I am correct here, let us update the wiki article to reflect the exceptions to the perl-$fulldistname statement found: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Perl_package_guidelines and let us merge the rogue pkgbuilds into the proper locations. It just seems unnecessarily redundant having perl modules with the name perl in the CPAN module name to have perl-perl- in the AUR.
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
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
participants (2)
-
John D Jones III
-
Xyne