Re: Bug#657067: ITP: futures -- backport of concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2

[Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>]

* Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>, 2012-01-25, 10:12:
> Another argument in favor of using the same name for source and binary 
> packages: suppose there is "libfoo", and independent bindings for Perl, 
> Python and Ruby, all called "foo", and that "foo" is unique in their 
> respective upstream language-specific namespaces (CPAN/PyPi/Rubygems); 
> which one gets to use the 'foo' source package name in Debian?

None of them, of course.

This is an argument for naming source packages in a sane way when your 
upstream for some reasons could do that himself... Not much to do with 
$binarypackagename==$sourcepackagename, really.

--
Jakub Wilk