Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
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.
Rules for packaging things are normally there to solve problems of
interoperability and to assist QA efforts. Which of these is it going to
help?
> Never the less, I think we should collectively decide what to do, rather
> than continuing the mess, with everyone having its own rule.
What mess? If there is a perceived mess, why is that a problem in any case?
How does it help to make a new rule? Who does it help? What problem does
this solve? Why is any intellectual energy being spent on this at all?
It looks exceedingly like a rule for the sake of having a rule. It will be
an exceedingly complicated rule in that it will have to cover python
modules, python applications and other libraries that offer python bindings
all separately. It will have to be accompanied an explanation of why so many
packages don't follow it because they were uploaded prior to the rule
existing. Basically... unless we are going to force every existing source
package to change name to comply with this rule there is no point in having
it (and no-one has advocated renaming source packages as is useless work for
everyone).
Rules like this look like yet another small barrier to entry to new
contributors in the form of yet another thing to learn. Debian already has
too many administrative hurdles and piles of little rules that scare away
people. I'm yet to understand whether rules like this are created for
benefit of people who like to have a policy with which to berate others or
by people who like to impose order on the world around them.
2¢
Stuart
--
Stuart Prescott http://www.nanonanonano.net/ stuart@nanonanonano.net
Debian Developer http://www.debian.org/ stuart@debian.org
GPG fingerprint BE65 FD1E F4EA 08F3 23D4 3C6D 9FE8 B8CD 71C5 D1A8
Reply to: