Re: Bug#551275: ITP: lazr.restfulclient -- client for lazr.restful-based web services
On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 23:53, Jonathan Yu <email@example.com> wrote:
> In Perl at last,
> packages are named like "Package::Name", while the Debian packages are
> called "libpackage-name-perl." If the only justification for naming
> Python modules that way is that it is more similar to the Python
> module names, one could make a similar argument for
> libpackage::name-perl (which is just plain strange)
This is *not* a valid name: citing from policy, §5.6.1.
Package names (both source and binary, see Section 5.6.7, ``Package'')
must consist only of lower case letters (`a-z'), digits (`0-9'), plus
(`+') and minus (`-') signs, and periods (`.'). They must be at least
two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character.
>> libfoo0.1 and similar (where the dot is part of a version of types but
>> not 'the' version), then there are all the foo.app packages and the
> Yep, that's what I meant by 'version part' -- though not part of the
> actual package version, it does refer to a series (apache2.0 vs
> apache2.2 for example) of packages. This, I consider to be distinct
> from other packages like the Python ones.
> Is this a Python-specific phenomenon, or do other packages in Debian
> exhibit the same patterns?
Binary packages name must be of for python-<what you import> so if the
main module provided by that package is a.b.c, then the binary package
name will be python-a.b.c (even if I personally prefer s/./-/g).
For source packages names we are a bit more free, so we tend to match
upstream project name, but that's not a requirment.
That's part of Python policy, others may differ.
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi