The Perl module package naming convention is perl-$CPANDIST, and this package doesn't follow it (should be perl-gettext, not perl-Locale-gettext). Now, this is very much my fault, didn't catch it in the review, and it doesn't really matter much as all dependencies should be specified as perl(Locale::gettext) anyway. I thought it would be nice to add "Provides: perl-gettext = %{version}-%{release}" into this package nevertheless. No strong opinions though; add the provides, or rename the package, or leave it as is. Your call.
(In reply to comment #0) > The Perl module package naming convention is perl-$CPANDIST, and this package > doesn't follow it (should be perl-gettext, not perl-Locale-gettext). Is it? Is this documented anywhere? > Now, this is very much my fault, didn't catch it in the review, and it doesn't > really matter much as all dependencies should be specified as > perl(Locale::gettext) anyway. Exactly. But I think the actual problem is in CPAN: The tarball is called "gettext-*.tar.gz", while the actual module is "Locale::gettext". I chose perl-Locale-gettext for the RPM, primarily because I assumed people will be looking for perl-Locale-gettext-*.rpm when encountering a perl dependency on Locale::gettext. Also, I find calling the RPM perl-gettext*.rpm to be misleading because it would indicate this module to contain Perl's "one and only gettext binding". However this is just _one_ aribitrary gettext binding. > I thought it would be nice to add "Provides: > perl-gettext = %{version}-%{release}" into this package nevertheless. I am not opposed to it, if people think this is useful. > No strong opinions though; add the provides, or rename the package, or leave > it as is. Your call. Neither strong opinions by me, too. Advice appreciated
I thought that the package naming guidelines would have adviced to use perl-$CPANDIST, but instead it goes on to say things about "the CPAN module name". IMO, that makes no sense because the unit of CPAN module packaging is a CPAN _distribution_, and the vast majority those distributions contain more than one module. What's "the CPAN module name" then? Just using the CPAN distribution name would work, and is already used in all CPAN packages I'm aware of.
(In reply to comment #2) > I thought that the package naming guidelines would have adviced to use > perl-$CPANDIST, but instead it goes on to say things about "the CPAN module > name". Can we agree upon this and make this mandatory for FE? Is there consenus on this? > IMO, that makes no sense because the unit of CPAN module packaging is a CPAN > _distribution_, and the vast majority those distributions contain more than > one module. What's "the CPAN module name" then? Just using the CPAN > distribution name would work, and is already used in all CPAN packages I'm > aware of. I would not bet on FC, but I guess, you are right as far as FE is concerned. How to proceed with this package? 1. Apply cvs tricks (I.e. an admin moving the files in CVS)? 2. Re-import the package into CVS under "perl-gettext" and "cvs rm" perl-Locale-gettext? 3. Let it be in FC-4 and re-import it as "perl-gettext" into "devel"?
> IMO, that makes no sense because the unit of CPAN module packaging is a CPAN > _distribution_, and the vast majority those distributions contain more than > one module. What's "the CPAN module name" then? Usually, each cpan distribution has a so called "main module", hence the VERSION_FROM MakeMaker option. So, IMHO, maybe Ralf's choice was not so bad after all, or at least I think he has a point. ;-)
Sure, it wasn't entirely unexpected, otherwise I would have noticed it in my review :) But I still think using the CPAN distribution name is the right thing to do, at least wrt the guidelines. Why settle for "usually they have a main module", and spend time pondering what might The Module be (checking VERSION_FROM is not necessarily a very good criteria for that), when all of them have an unambiguous distribution name as long as the unit of packaging is the very distribution? Anyway, as said, IMO it's Ralf's call whether he wants to do something about this package, and my .02⬠is listed in the summary and initial comment of this bug...
(In reply to comment #5) > Sure, it wasn't entirely unexpected, otherwise I would have noticed it in my > Anyway, as said, IMO it's Ralf's call whether he wants to do something about > this package, and my .02⬠is listed in the summary and initial comment of this > bug... ... and I had asked for opinions in comment #3 ;) Tell me how you want me to proceed with it. To me, the current naming of this package is fine, but I also don't have a problem in changing it, if there is common agreement on this matter. Technically, adding a "provides: perl-gettext" is matter of minutes, but renaming the package would require more "brains".
As said, your call. If I was the maintainer of this package, I would add "Provides: perl-gettext = %{version}-%{release}" and leave it at that.
Added "Provides: perl-gettext = %{version}-%{release}"