Re: autopkgtest-pkg-python fails if package name is python-pyMODULENAME (Was: Bug#945768: python-pypubsub: autopkgtest failure: No module named 'pypubsub')

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On November 28, 2019 5:27:53 PM UTC, Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 11:15:31 -0500, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> if you install `pubsub` as top-level module, your package must be
>> named pythonN-pubsub, if not it violates the policy and it's RC
>buggy.
>
>That's what I had thought, but I've also seen people asserting that the
>Debian package name ought to reflect the egg name in cases where it
>differs from the top-level Python module name.
>
>Some examples of where the difference between egg name and module name
>matters:
>
>- this one:
>  - module: pubsub (-> python3-pubsub)
>  - egg: pypubsub-*.egg-info (-> python3-pypubsub)
>  - is actually python3-pypubsub (named for the egg)
>
>- src:dbus-python:
>  - module: dbus (-> python3-dbus)
>  - egg: dbus_python-1.2.14.egg-info (-> python3-dbus-python)
>  - is actually python3-dbus (named for the module)
>
>- src:pygobject:
>  - module: gi (-> python3-gi) and pygtkcompat
>  - egg: PyGObject-3.34.0.egg-info (-> python3-pygobject)
>  - is actually python3-gi (named for the module)
>
>(Maybe python3-gi should also have Provides: python3-pygtkcompat?)
>
>Is there consensus that the top-level module name is what matters, and
>not
>following the recommendation is a bug?
>https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/module_packages.html
>says "The binary package for module foo should preferably be named
>python3-foo, if the module name allows" and "import foo should import
>the module", which suggests that it is indeed the name of the top-level
>importable module, and not the name of the egg, that matters (which
>would
>imply that -dbus and -gi are correct, and -pypubsub is not).
>
>Is there consensus that not following this recommendation is a *RC*
>bug?
>The bits I quoted above say "should" rather than "must".
>
>Thanks,
>    smcv

Python Policy is not Debian Policy.  It's not a "policy" violation in the sense of a serious bug.  That said, it would be better to change it.

Scott K