Re: MBF proposal: python modules that fail to import
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:00:24PM +0200, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> I tried to do my best :)
>
> https://sources.debian.org/src/autodep8/0.11.1/support/python/generate/
>
> Feel free to add more "magic" for module name detection.
There is an easy improvement and a difficult one I can propose.
The easy one is adding -examples to the list of ignored package
suffixes.
The difficult one is deriving the module name from the list of files. My
initial mail contains a genlist.py that shows my technique for computing
the module name. Essentially it looks for all *.py files, trims .py,
then trims /__init__ and then looks for a common prefix of all .py
files. If there is a single prefix, then we found the module name.
This finds things such as:
* python-azure-storage -> azure.storage (likely the binary package
should be renamed to python-azure.storage)
* python-ball -> BALL
* python-bd2k -> bd2k.util
* python-bpfcc -> bcc
* python-distutils-extra -> DistUtilsExtra
* python-djangorestframework-gis -> rest_framework_gis
* python-dogpile.cache -> dogpile
* python-fftw -> fftw3
* python-pastewebkit -> paste.webkit (again rename to
python-paste.webkit?)
* python-pyscss -> scss
* python-pysnmp4 -> pysnmp
* python-tcpwrap -> pytcpwrap
I'm not sure how I'd add this to the generate script, but there clearly
is room for improvement over s/-/_/. There also is room for improving
our package naming.
Would it help to get a list of binary packages that could be covered by
the current autodep8 if they were named correctly (according to the
Python Policy)? Actually renaming them might make ftp masters a bit
grumpy though.
Helmut
Reply to: