Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
On Jul 10, 2013, at 02:58 PM, 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.
While I'm in favor of more consistency, I'm not sure it will be possible to
come up with a hard and fast rule. As for consistency, the discussion here
should help and we can promote recommendations in our wiki/docs and when we
review packages.
As I've stated, my own personal preference is to name the source package after
the PyPI name (which usually means without the `python-` prefix) unless there
are extenuating circumstances, e.g. collisions or confusions with other
packages.
We already have rules for naming the binary packages.
-Barry
Reply to: