Re: python3-scanpy 1.6.0 patched, could you take a look?
On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 05:21:30AM -0700, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> On 2021-03-22 17:24, ucko@debian.org wrote:
> > Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> writes:
> >
> >> [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/index.html#module-package-names
> >
> > By my reading, this documents how binary package names should related to
> > module names (as found in import directives) and says nothing about
> > source package names. Explicit python-* prefixes are common, even when
> > module names contain "py" themselves; see, for instance, python-biopython.
>
> Ah, right. I clearly got that wrong.
> But in any case, is there a convention? Some python library-only
> packages do have a python- prefixed
> and others do not, as I see.
I was pointed in some mails (which I'm to busy to seek for) by members
of the Python team to prefix source package names by 'python-' and I'm
following this recommendation. I know there are counter-examples but
it also fits my personal taste that it is convenient to have source and
(main) binary package name the same - well, I know the binary is now
python3-* instead of python-* but you know what I mean.
IMHO in the Debian Med team we should be extra picky about this. We
have lots of other applications. I consider it very convenient to guess
from the repository name what type of package can be expected.
So this is another ping to Steffen: Is scanpy just a Python3 module or
does it also provide a user application? In the latter case will it
make sense to provide another binary package scanpy for users
convenience?
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: