Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Denis Laxalde wrote:
> >>Policy-compliant package name would be "python-numpydoc", but that
> >>could be easily confused with "python-numpy-doc". So I agree with
> >>your assessment: "python-numpydoc-sphinx" is a better for the binary
> >>package.
> >if it wouldn't be "convention compliant" anyways -- may be
> >python-sphinx-numpydoc? there is already python-sphinx-issuetracker ...
> But the namespace is numpydoc not sphinx, so it's even more
> confusing, isn't it?
that was just my .1 cents ;) yes, probably having namespace first with
some kind of qualifier (-sphinx) is more logical. I just wondered if we
could reach some unification for 'python-sphinx' related packages.
ah -- we also have
python-repoze.sphinx.autointerface
providing /usr/share/pyshared/repoze/sphinx/autointerface.py
--
Yaroslav O. Halchenko
Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences
Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755
Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419
WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik
Reply to: