[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ITP: ZWiki (a zope product)

For Zope, I would go with the Python naming convention. For Python packages,
we have an implicit policy to use python-foo-bar for packages that extend 
the Python interpreter (e.g. python-gtk) and foo-bar-python for packages 
that embed Python in an application (e.g. gimp-python or vim-python).

IIRC, John will change the name of tinytable-zope to zope-tinytable with
the next revision of the package (see also #46775). squishdot arguably
is an application on its own (cf. imp) and therefore can use its own
package name IMHO.

Not that there's an open Bug (#41113) regarding the topic of package
naming conventions. It was also discussed on debian-python, and IIRC
the majority preferred the current Python naming convention.

Therefore I would beg Zope package maintainers to go with the zope-foo-bar
naming convention. At least that makes the Zope and Python packages naming


PS: Do we really need a Python or Zope policy for this ?

On Wed, Nov 17, 1999 at 07:52:50AM -0600, Chris McClimans wrote:
> I've noticed that there is a difference in the zope naming convention
> for the current zope packages in potato.
> zope-mysqlda,zope-pygresqlda and tinytable-zope and squisdot are all zope
> packages with different naming standards.
> The perl convention seems to be to add -perl to packages related to perl.
> I think we should standardize on using -zope for all zope products.
> What is the general consensus?

Reply to: