From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Perl modules Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:56:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20140511085638.GA15275@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="T4sUOijqQbZv57TR" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33392) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WjPYw-0005Ym-N4 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2014 04:56:57 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WjPYo-0007Au-Jz for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2014 04:56:50 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:62540) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WjPYo-0007Aq-8f for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 May 2014 04:56:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: guix-devel@gnu.org --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 09:24:42PM +0100, Andreas Enge wrote: > All very reasonable. Let us go for this (and I should add a section to the > packaging guidelines later on). Months later, here is a proposed patch in British English. Do we have a rule on which spelling to use? British is what I learnt at school. (I feel like starting a bikeshed discussion ;-).) Andreas --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="0001-doc-Add-a-section-on-perl-modules-in-the-packaging-g.patch" >From 97a3ac573edcb3046ee9655497a97bdf750090ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Andreas Enge Date: Sun, 11 May 2014 10:43:51 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] doc: Add a section on perl modules in the packaging guidelines. * doc/guix.texi (Perl modules): New section explaining the naming of perl modules. --- doc/guix.texi | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/guix.texi b/doc/guix.texi index 2aacf5d..de50ae5 100644 --- a/doc/guix.texi +++ b/doc/guix.texi @@ -2751,6 +2751,7 @@ needed is to review and apply the patch. * Package Naming:: What's in a name? * Version Numbers:: When the name is not enough. * Python Modules:: Taming the snake. +* Perl Modules:: Little pearls. @end menu @node Software Freedom @@ -2796,8 +2797,8 @@ Both are usually the same and correspond to the lowercase conversion of the project name chosen upstream. For instance, the GNUnet project is packaged as @code{gnunet}. We do not add @code{lib} prefixes for library packages, unless these are already part of the official project name. But see -@ref{Python Modules} for special rules concerning modules for -the Python language. +@ref{Python Modules} and @ref{Perl Modules} for special rules concerning +modules for the Python and Perl languages. @node Version Numbers @@ -2859,6 +2860,19 @@ for instance, the module python-dateutil is packaged under the names @code{python-dateutil} and @code{python2-dateutil}. +@node Perl Modules +@subsection Perl Modules + +Perl programs standing for themselves are named as any other package, +using the lowercase upstream name. +For perl packages containing a single class, we use the lowercase class name, +replace all occurrences of @code{::} by dashes and prepend the prefix +@code{perl-}. +So the class @code{XML::Parser} becomes @code{perl-xml-parser}. +Modules containing several classes keep their lowercase upstream name and +are also prepended by @code{perl-}. Such modules tend to have the word +@code{perl} somewhere in their name, which gets dropped in favour of the +prefix. For instance, @code{libwww-perl} becomes @code{perl-libwww}. -- 1.8.4 --T4sUOijqQbZv57TR--