2011/3/9 Auguste Pop <auguste@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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, > 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
