Re: Bug#657067: ITP: futures -- backport of concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org> writes:
> 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).
This can make things unnecessarily awkward and confusing for, say, the
BTS. Nothing that people can't deal with, but in the Perl group we had a
discussion about this a while back and decided to always stick with
calling the source package and the binary package the same thing if the
source only builds one binary.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: