Bug#819463: RFS: python-arrayfire/3.3.20160328-1 [ITP]

[Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>]

On 29/03/16 22:52, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 05:58:28PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > Just realized I should have probably named the source package
> > "arrayfire-python" to reflect the name of the project on GitHub

Regarding the renaming, I meant the **source** package only, not the
binary packages.

> no, for the very simple reason that there is Python Debian Policy that
> asserts python modules have to be named python-${module_name}

Indeed the policy is explicit about the naming convention of the binary
packages, but I could not find anything regarding the naming convention
for the corresponding source package.

I recently suggested adopting the same naming convention in Bug#819157:

  https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819157

But the OP justified not taking action by mentioning the lack of
consistency in that regard for modules maintained by the DPMT.

Do you think it is a deficiency in the current policy then?

Ghis