Re: Policy for naming python packages
On Jun 09, Michael Sobolev wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2000 at 11:16:13AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Do all Debian python packages have to be prefixed by 'python-' ?
> > I recently packaged the "pyunit" software and I still don't
> > know if I have to rename it python-unit or if I can keep its
> > name as is.
>
> Looks like there is at least one package that does not follow this "policy":
> reportbug. Hmm, zope also uses its own naming scheme... :)
reportbug and zope can be used without doing any programming in
Python; hence, I don't think naming them "python-X" makes any sense.
It would be like calling the bug "sh-bug".
The python-* nomenclature is intended for modules, not end-user
applications. (For example, python-newt is a module because it
doesn't do anything user-visible. reportbug is an end-user
application because it provides binaries. reportbug does provide
modules as well, but that's not the point of the package... the point
is to produce a bug reporting tool, the modules are just there for
reusability in case someone gets around to writing a GUI tool or
people want to use the BTS interface code. Theoretically, those
modules could be in a "python-debbugs" package, but IMHO that'd be a
waste of resources.)
Other python-using applications:
- ppmtofb (has "fbview" script)
- fetchmailconf
- idle
- vim-python
- pydf
Hopefully this clears that up.
Chris (reportbug maintainer)
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | It's 2/3 of a beltway... |
| <quango@watervalley.net> | http://www.lordsutch.com/tn385/ |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | Are you tired of politics as usual? |
| University of Mississippi | http://www.lp.org/ |
=============================================================================
Reply to: