Re: Bug#790399: ITP: structlog -- tructured Logging for Python
On Mon, 06 Jul 2015, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-07-01 at 02:58:41 +0100, Filippo Giunchedi wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 01:56:55PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:
> > > Not necessarily (as we are talking about the source package name).
> >
> > indeed, most python modules I've looked at so far don't have the python-
> > prefix in their name
>
> I've always considered this a bad practice that I'd really like, we as
> a project, stopped perpetuating.
Indeed.
Furthermore, unless there's a strong reason for doing otherwise,[1]
packages which produce a single binary package should have a source
package with the same name as the binary package. [And ideally, if they
produce more than one binary package, the source package should share
the same prefix as at least some of the binary packages produced if they
are not named identically to one of the binary packages produced.]
We don't need more crazy cases where src:A produces bin:B and src:B
produces bin:A.
1: For example, they're currently producing bin:foo8, and are eventually
going to be producing bin:foo9, then calling the source src:foo seems
reasonable.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
I'm wrong to criticize the valor of your brave men. It's important to
die for one's country when it means being the subject of a king who
wears a ruffled collar or a pleated one.
-- Cyrano de Bergerac
Reply to: