* Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org>, 2012-01-23, 13:30:
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. :)do you mean the binary? that will be python-concurrent.futures, as per python policy; for the source I'm open to commentspython-futures for the package name, surely, no?
I normally advocate using upstream name for source package name (even if it's a single binary package and the binary package would have a different name due to $LANGUAGE policy). However, in this case I agree that "futures" would be too generic.
-- Jakub Wilk