On 2022-12-11 20 h 53, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On December 12, 2022 1:24:35 AM UTC, Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> wrote:Proposal: the DPT will start adding a `python-` prefix to NEW source packages names, unless the upstream project already contains it AFAICT all other major languages ecosystems packaging teams use a (semi?)mandatory tag to identify their source packages (results below from a very quick look at Sources, top results only): prefix: golang, rust, r, node, ruby, haskell, php, ocaml, python (on a voluntary basis), and others prefix+suffix: perl At the beginning, I remember being in favor of the current status quo in DPT, where each maintainer can choose to add `python-` if they feel like it, or just use the upstream name. Thru the years, i've grown more uncomfortable with this situation and i think the fact we dont mandate a `python` prefix in the team source packages names (and thus guiding the rest of the python packagers within Debian towards a common style) is detrimental to Debian as a whole, and we should change it. My proposal as stated at the top is to start from now on to prepend `python` to all NEW source packages in DPT, with the option to rename existing packages at a later date. What are other team members' opinions on this?For packages that on contain a python module/extension, I think it's not horrible, but I don't see why it's better to diverge from upstream naming.
I tend to agree with Sandro on for this use case.
For packages that contain or are primarily applications, I don't think it's a good idea.
Ditto on that one, I don't feel having "python-supysonic" would be a good naming scheme...
-- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄
Attachment:
OpenPGP_0xE1E5457C8BAD4113.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature