[aur-general] Perl pkgbuild and module names beginning with Perl::

[Xyne]

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