Re: wheel support for Debian?
On 17 May 2014 02:17, Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> wrote:
> On May 15, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>>Shouldn't it be singular? Each package provides a wheel, not several wheels
>>(and I'd name the location the same for consistency).
>
> I thought about this. True, in all current cases there's a single wheel file
> in the binary package. I wanted to leave open the possibility that a binary
> package could contain multiple wheels, but I agree that's a weak argument
> given the scope we're trying to limit here.
>
> Two mild reasons I went with plurals in the package name: I think the
> directory where these get laid down on the file system *should* be plural,
> since it *will* hold multiple wheels, and I wanted the binary package name to
> reflect that.
>
> Also, since we now have python-wheel and python3-wheel packages, which contain
> the PyPI wheel package, I thought it was confusing to name the built-wheel
> packages with the same suffix. E.g. python-wheel and python-urllib3-wheel
> would by naming appear to have a relationship that they actually don't have.
> It seemed clearer that the latter would be called python-urllib3-wheels.
>
> It's bikeshedding, but anyway that was my rationale for choosing the names I
> did.
Whats the tiebreak logic for a package foo.wheels (e.g. if py.wheels
comes along, will it be python-py-wheels-wheels for the wheels for
it?)
Did you consider using python-wheels-urllib3 ?
-Rob
--
Robert Collins <rbtcollins@hp.com>
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
Reply to: