On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >@@ -534,6 +534,13 @@ > This requirement also applies to extension modules; binaries for all > the supported Python versions should be included in a single package. > >+ As a special exception to the `python3-' and `python-' binary naming >+ policy, Python modules intended for use with Django (`python3-django'/ >+ `python-django') should add django to their binary package names to >+ make it clear they are intended for use with Django and not general >+ purpose Python modules, i.e. `python3-django-' and `python-django-' >+ respectively. +1 but I have a question since I'm not a hardcore Django developer. In many cases we have namespace packages, e.g. zope.*, flufl.*, etc. Usually these will be called python-<main>.<sub>, e.g. python-flufl.i18n. Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a 3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage? e.g. python3-django-foo vs. python3-django.foo. I'm sure it's a non-issue in practice. Cheers, -Barry
Attachment:
pgpdOKwjStk0Y.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature