Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
FWIW, I think the current scheme works best.
I manage a bunch of packages that have python wrappers; the package
then pretty much _has_ to follow the current scheme, eg.
Source package: silo
Bin packages: libsilo0
libsilo-dev
python-silo
python3-silo (coming).
A policy on renaming the source package isn't likely to change silo,
etc. and
so a greater inconsistency follows.
regards
Alastair
On 10/07/2013 07:58, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/08/2013 10:10 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> There is no policy on this either way, so there's no "mistake".
> Well, the mistake is precisely to have no rule, IMO.
>
> On 07/08/2013 11:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> Hopefully, it will become more and more common to have at least
>> python-X and python3-X. With that in mind, many of our source
>> packages that are producing a single binary package today should
>> hopefully be producing two or more binary packages tomorrow.
> Never the less, I think we should collectively decide what to do, rather
> than continuing the mess, with everyone having its own rule.
>
> Thomas
>
>
--
Alastair McKinstry , <alastair@sceal.ie> , <mckinstry@debian.org> http://blog.sceal.ie
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world
is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulter, Economist.
Reply to: