Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 12:30:54 AM Stuart Prescott wrote:
> 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¢
+100
Scott K
Reply to: