Re: Debian Python Policy [draft]
On Wed, 2001-09-26 at 11:37, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> David Coe <davidc@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Neil Schemenauer <nas@python.ca> writes:
> >
> > > 2.3. Module Package Names
> > > -------------------------
> > >
> > > Python module packages should be named for the primary module
> > > provided. The naming convention for module `foo' is `python-foo'.
> > > Packages which include multiple modules may additionally include
> > > provides for those modules using the same convention.
> >
> > What happened to the libfoo-python idea (for consistency with the perl
> > and, presumably, java convention)? I'm personally happy with python-foo, but
> > understand the arguments in favor consistency.
> >
> > Is there good reason not to adopt that now?
>
> We could perhaps differenciate python modules and bindings.
>
> For example, libxml bindings for Python would be libxml-python.
> Also, python-gtk would become libgtk-python, python-gnome would become libgnome-python
> and so on.
>
> However, xml tools for python would stay python-xml.
terrible. while changing all packages to use libXXX-python is aceptable,
the best thing is to stick to python-XXX. a lot of people expect it this
way and is at least coherent.
--
Federico Di Gregorio
MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology fog@mixadlive.com
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org
Qu'est ce que la folie? Juste un sentiment de liberté si
fort qu'on en oublie ce qui nous rattache au monde... -- J. de Loctra
Reply to: