Hi
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 13:38:35 +0100
Filippo Giunchedi <filippo@esaurito.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 12:51:17PM +0100, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > According to Debian Python Policy [1] I think that correct name of
> > package should be python-bluetooth and not pybluez.
>
> that seems sensible, although bluez is not the only bluetooth stack available
> for linux (okay, it is included in vanilla kernels). Note that only the source
> package is named pybluez, binary packages are python{,2.3,2.4}-bluez.
I missed the python- prefix, sorry.
> but yes, I would consider adding a python-bluetooth metapackage which depends on
> python-bluez, just to be consistent with the recent bluez/bluetooth renaming
> stuff.
If you want python-bluez, it should be reverse, quoting from Debian
Python Policy:
A package with a name python-foo will always provide the module foo for
the default Debian Python version of the distribution.
So module (which name is bluetooth) itself should be in
python*-bluetooth. And I don't think second package is needed. Or is
there plan to rename module to bluez? I hope it is not :-).
> I plan to get both packages (or only python-bluetooth?) removed from NEW and
> then upload a new version of python-bluez with the above issues corrected.
Okay for me.
--
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature