Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
On 07/08/2013 10:10 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> There is no policy on this either way, so there's no "mistake".
Well, the mistake is precisely to have no rule, IMO.
On 07/08/2013 11:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> Hopefully, it will become more and more common to have at least
> python-X and python3-X. With that in mind, many of our source
> packages that are producing a single binary package today should
> hopefully be producing two or more binary packages tomorrow.
Never the less, I think we should collectively decide what to do, rather
than continuing the mess, with everyone having its own rule.
Thomas
Reply to: