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

Ángel Velásquez angvp at archlinux.org
Tue Mar 8 22:55:50 EST 2011

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,


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

More information about the arch-general mailing list