Control: retitle -1 python-policy: Suggest conventional namespacing for Python modules' source packages Control: forwarded -1 https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/19 Control: tags -1 + patch On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 15:07:35 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2024 at 15:31:26 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote:I guess whether "upstream name or python-$modulename" would seem fine, depends on what "upstream name" is.src:dbus-python, src:tap.py and src:pygobject seem like some examples of upstream names that are fine (not going to conflict with other ecosystems) despite not fitting the /^python-/ pattern.
Prompted by discussion with a new packager on debian-python (in which I wanted to refer the new packager to documentation, but then discovered that the documentation I wanted didn't exist), I've written some possible wording. Please see: https://salsa.debian.org/cpython-team/python3-defaults/-/merge_requests/19
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 at 17:22:26 +0000, Stefano Rivera wrote:
I think it would be silly to namespace application source packages
The guidance I've proposed is specific to source packages that mainly exist to install Python modules (the things other ecosystems might call "libraries"). Applications that happen to be written in Python, like meson and d-feet, do not need to follow it (and IMO they should not: the source package names meson and d-feet are more appropriate than python-meson or python-d-feet).
smcv