Re: Naming convention for -doc package

[Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 18:58 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-02-09 at 16:51 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Ghislain Vaillant <ghisvail@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Now that new packages are targeting the Buster cycle, and that Python 2
> > > > packages should no longer be built,
> > > 
> > > this is news to me, can you point me to where this was announced?
> > 
> > Announced, I don't know. But:
> > 
> > https://lintian.debian.org/tags/new-package-should-not-package-python2-module.html
> > 
> > Unless I am missing something?
> 
> this was triggered by
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=829744 -- sigh

Thanks for finding it out. So based on #829744, both pytest-qt and
pytest-xvfb, which are new packages, do not produce a corresponding
Python 2 binary package.

Back to the original question, what about the naming for -doc packages?

Ghis