Re: Bug#657067: ITP: futures -- backport of concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 22:06, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
>> python-futures for the package name, surely, no?
> do you mean the binary? that will be python-concurrent.futures, as per
> python policy; for the source I'm open to comments
I was thinking of the source. If you're building a single binary package
from the source package, it's usually better for everyone's level of
confusion to just name the source package the same as the binary package.
But my main point was just to avoid having a source package named
"futures"; that's a little general. :)
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: