I have my scripts, I want to distribute.
Cpan *seems* like the right place.

I am aware of the script section of cpan, and of the submission guidelines.

Here's the issue.

I distribute my scripts through my network much as perl modules. That is, my scripts are really distros, just like perl module distros, under revision control, with documentation, with Makefile.PL, possibly a test suite.

Cpan suggests scripts should be single file. That is, they should be scripts.

I have no interest in distributing a 'script' with no readme, no test of any sort, no makefile... It's crazy. This is ok for my home computer.. but as soon as this junk is going on one other of my machines.. I *need* make, revission control, etc.

I see all my work distro work as distros. It may be an API (regular cpan distros)- It may be a cli (command line interface)- Or it may be a WUI (web user interface). It may even be a complex application (more akin rpm/deb package managent types) with API and cli and WUI.

Look at the scripts on cpan. Some of this stuff is cool. But you can't do # cpan spause.

If this had been a proper distro.. with make, with docs... etc .. uploaded as spause-0.1-tar.gz etc... Then you could do # cpan spause

. . .

We do see distributions on cpan that have clis, under bin/ this is useful. But what if I have package PDF::Kick, and I have cli bin/pdfkick - and there's no API. Then I still should distribute as perhaps.. PDFKick

Ok, I am making a mess of explaining myself here- I'm sorry! I dunno how else to explain this..

Basically I am in doubt whether it would be a ok thing to do to upload distro to cpan which would be primarily a cli, with possibly no API (no lib pm) and naming it lower case per unix conventions.. That is.. pdfkick in the example stated.

Would this be polluting cpan?

Should I simply distribute perl distros online instead/ via repos/ via source, such as gnu utils etc? And keep it off cpan?

I mean, these are really just posix programs that happen to be perl.