Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
[Stuart Prescott, 2013-07-10]
> 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¢
+1
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645
Reply to: