From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: Re: Perl modules Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 23:56:17 +0100 Message-ID: <87a9gd612m.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20131206221704.GA11316@debian> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38397) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vp4Jt-00023K-5P for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:56:30 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vp4Jn-0003OA-KU for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:56:25 -0500 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:1631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vp4Jn-0003O2-E0 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 06 Dec 2013 17:56:19 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131206221704.GA11316@debian> (Andreas Enge's message of "Fri, 6 Dec 2013 23:17:04 +0100") 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: Andreas Enge Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Andreas Enge skribis: > it looks like I have stumbled upon an enormous dependency tree: > > For kdelibs, I would like soprano; > for soprano, I would like redland; > for redland, I need rasqal; > for some tests of rasqal to work, I need perl-xml-dom; > for perl-xml-dom, I need libwww-perl; > for libwww-perl, I need a lot of packages: Ouch. :-) > This leads me to the question: How should the packages containing perl > modules be named, and in which files should they be defined? > > So far, there are the following packages in xml.scm: > perl-xml-parser containing XML-Parser > perl-xml-parser-perlsax containing libxml-perl > perl-xml-simple containing XML-Simple > > The second one is definitely a misnomer; I was looking for > XML::Parser::PerlSAX, and a search led me to the documentation page > http://search.cpan.org/~kmacleod/libxml-perl-0.08/lib/XML/Parser/PerlSA= X.pm > which is just one of the modules of libxml-perl > http://search.cpan.org/~kmacleod/libxml-perl-0.08/ > > If we follow our standard naming scheme, then the packages should be call= ed > xml-parser, libxml-perl and xml-simple. Notice that two of them do not > contain the word "perl". Should we add "perl" in front then, similarly to > what we do with python modules? How about libxml-perl? Do we keep it as s= uch, > or should we then call it perl-libxml-perl for consistency? I would add the =E2=80=98perl-=E2=80=99 prefix, unless the package stands a= lone (for instance, Hydra would be called =E2=80=98hydra=E2=80=99, not =E2=80=98perl-= hydra=E2=80=99.) For the rest of the name, I would take the Perl module name. So =E2=80=98XML::Parser=E2=80=99 leads to =E2=80=98perl-xml-parser=E2=80=99, e= tc. In cases where there=E2=80=99s not a single module tree root, I would stick= to the upstream name, removing any redundant =E2=80=98perl=E2=80=99 in the nam= e. So =E2=80=98libxml-perl=E2=80=99 (which provides modules under XML::, Data::Gr= ove, etc.) would lead to =E2=80=98perl-libxml=E2=80=99. How does that sound? > Concerning the files, maybe all perl modules should go into perl.scm? I don=E2=80=99t think so. For instance, I think it=E2=80=99s OK to have pe= rl-xml-* in xml.scm, esp. because they are also used by =E2=80=98intltool=E2=80=99 for = instance. I=E2=80=99d use perl.scm for any Perl-specific library that doesn=E2=80=99t= have a better home (yeah, that=E2=80=99s very informal...) WDYT? Ludo=E2=80=99.