On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 10:58 AM, 郑文辉 <techlivezheng@xxxxxxxxx> 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,
