Re: RFS: numpydoc/0.4-1 [RFP/ITP 559916]
Yaroslav Halchenko <debian@onerussian.com> wrote:
>
>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
Python policy wise that's the correct name for the package.
Scott K
Reply to: