On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:26, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the debian python policy states that module packages should be named > > python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which > > contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT > > PySyck is basically a fork of the upstream bindings). > > Would python-pysyck be a reasonable name for the package, or is something > > else more adequate ? > > If the module name is syck and that there already is a python-syck > then you're going into trouble, because you will have conflicts between > the two. > > you should call a package python-$(foo) if to use it you have to > "import $(foo)". At least it's what the policy says, and it's IMHO sane. > And if you have two different libraries providing the same module $(foo) > they can't be installed at the same time. In that case, well, I don't > really know what to say. Having two things not really the same called > the same suck. I hardly see someone fork the openssl and say that the > new lib would be called libssl too. That would be disastrous. That's the > same here IMHO. Yes, obviously the packages would have to conflict. They cannot be installed at the same time, but they could be available at the same time, IMHO. There is also the possibility of creating a virtual package python-syck and have libsyck-python and pysyck or something provide it, which is, IMHO, ugly. There is also the option of only having one in the distribution, which should be PySyck for having more features. This would mean chucking the official binding out of debian, which I am not entirely comfortable with either. I am very new to debian packaging and a bit lost here, which is why I'm asking debian-python for advice ;-) Thomas Jollans
Attachment:
pgp7KjBajT20b.pgp
Description: PGP signature