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