[arch-general] Several advices about Perl Package Packaging Standards

[Ángel Velásquez]

2011/3/9 Auguste Pop <auguste at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, 郑文辉 <techlivezheng at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey,guys
>>
>> 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.
>
> Best Regards,
>

Auguste,

I share your opinion.

-1 to that proposal, users of spamassasin doesn't even know that
spamassasin is coded on perl .

-- 
Angel Velásquez
angvp @ irc.freenode.net
Arch Linux Developer / Trusted User
Linux Counter: #359909
http://www.angvp.com