[arch-general] Several advices about Perl Package Packaging Standards
auguste at gmail.com
Tue Mar 8 22:34:45 EST 2011
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, 郑文辉 <techlivezheng at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have several thoughts about perl packages packing standards.
> First,It seems to me that renaming spamassassin to
> perl-mail-spamassassin which following the cpan perl packages naming
> standard is better.May be we can add a feature to PKGBULD that
> allowing package have several alias.Ex,perl-mail-spamassassin should
> be the official name and spamassassin could be the common name or
> aliase.Both official name and standard name can be installed or
> qureied using pacman,but official name mostly used in programing and
> official posts.
Spamassassin is used as a daemon, which happens to use perl. If it is
not necessarily used as a perl module, why should we rename it into
perl-something? Should we rename all c packages into c-* and bash
scripts into bash-*?
> Second,the URL variable of perl package's PKGBUILD should be restriced
> to cpan permanent urls (like:http://search.cpan.org/dist/*) even if
> the project has its own home page,and the cpan will link to the
> project's real homepage if exits.
And I don't think using CPAN as the package main page URL is a good
way if the package upstream has its own page. CPAN is downstream
compared to the package's own page.
I am not an Arch developer. This is simply my own opinion.
More information about the arch-general