Re: Bug#657067: ITP: futures -- backport of concurrent.futures package from Python 3.2
On Mon, 23 Jan 2012, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> 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).
If you are only building one binary package, the source package should
have the same name. The exception to this guideline is when the binary
package name is expected to change over the lifetime of the source
package. [For example, if the binary name contains a soname.]
Otherwise you can end up with confusing cases where a package with
source foo builds binary bar, and binary foo is built by source bar.
The language guidelines for binary packages exist to avoid cluttering
the package namespace, and they should generally be applied to source
packages too.
Don Armstrong
--
2: There is no out. There is only in.
-- "The Prisoner (2009 Miniseries)"
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: