Subject: Re: naming rules for packages with perl modules
To: Klaus Heinz <email@example.com>
From: Johnny Lam <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 11/18/2005 18:07:32
Klaus Heinz wrote:
> Greg Troxel wrote:
>>I have renamed graphics/exiftool to p5-Image-ExifTool.
>> There are no hard-and-fast rules for these kinds of things -- just
>> use your judgment.
>>OK, so no guide update :-)
> Just as an illustration: SpamAssassin was imported as
> p5-Mail-Spamassassin and later renamed to spamassassin. As the package
> stands today, it is really a mix of Perl modules, standalone programs
> using the module (or even compiled C programs) and accompanying files
> and skripts (mostly for developers and spam corpus contributors).
> For some time I am considering splitting the package into three separate
> packages similar to what other packaging systems do
> (p5-Mail-SpamAssassin again, spamassassin and spamassassin-tools).
"spamassassin" is one of those packages that I was appropriate to rename
from the "p5-*" name. People look for and use "spamassassin", but have
no use for the individual Perl modules that are part of the package, so
"spamassassin" seemed to be the right name. I don't see any problem
with splitting it up into sub-packages either if it's beneficial -- the
question as usual for whether to split a package or not is whether there
will actually be a significant population of users that will install
some but not all of the sub-packages, and whether that tradeoff against
the extra work needed to maintain the sub-packages is worthwhile.
Again, it's a judgment call.
-- Johnny Lam <email@example.com>