Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages
[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
> I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
> noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
> different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we use
> python*-django-foo.
>
> I think this is a reasonable approach and followed it in the new packages I've
> recently done.
>
> I decided to check and see how common the approach is. Here's what I found in
> Sid:
>
> Start with django: 7
> Start w/django, not transitional: 2
> Start with django3: 0
>
> Start with python-django (excluding -doc): 136
> Start with python3-django: 84
>
> I think it would make sense to add this to the Python policy so how we're
> doing it is documented. I am attaching a proposed diff. I made it a should
> because there are two non-DPMT packages that don't follow this rule and I
> think it's late in the cycle to be adding to must policy requirements.
>
> Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on wording. I'd
> like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults upload with
> this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending.
-1 from me
If Django packages have no use outside Django¹, they should be moved out²
of public dist-packages IMO. If they are useful, "-django" part is misleading.
[¹] dash suggest they're not in django namespace, otherwise binary
package name would be python3-django.foo
(or python3-django.ext.foo, like in flask?)
[²] sys.path.append('/usr/lib/python3/django-packages/') in
django/__init__.py if django import always prepends other imports
(python3-django- namespace would be tolerable then, I guess)
--
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: