Re: Bug#41113: Proposal: Naming Conventions for modules

[Chris Lawrence <quango@watervalley.net>]

On Jul 17, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Friday 16 July 1999, at 13 h 21, the keyboard of Joey Hess 
> <joey@kitenet.net> wrote:
> > And get a list of perl modules [1]. But I can't do that. I can with python
> > modules though, which is very nice.
> 
> Is there a formal policy for Python? I searched it and found
> nothing.

No; but, with < 5 people developing Python modules I suspect it's not
much of a problem.  Python's unofficial scheme is close to how Apache
modules are named (libapache-mod-* vs. python-*).  Maybe python-*
should be mandatory.

Ex: I have an ITP on Graphite and PIDDLE.  python-graphite and
python-piddle are reasonable names.  libgraphite-python seems wrong
(the upstream package isn't called "libgraphite" and it's certainly
not a shared library in the C sense).  Moving away from the existing
convention for Python seems counter-productive.


Chris
-- 
=============================================================================
|       Chris Lawrence       |   You have a computer.  Do you have Linux?   |
|  <quango@watervalley.net>  |     http://www.linux-m68k.org/index.html     |
|                            |                                              |
|   Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz  |        Do you want your bank to snoop?       |
|    with Linux/APUS 2.2.8   |       http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/      |
=============================================================================