Hello protobuf-socket-rpc developers,
I intend to package the Python version of protobuf-socket-rpc for
Debian [1]. Unfortunatelly this is not possible as straightforward as
I hoped because of some issues with the current Python code structure.
The first issue is the module name. The Debian project has a policy
regarding Python module packaging [2] that recommends to use the
module's import name to construct the actual package name. In your
case this would lead to a package python-protobuf. This name, as you
might have guessed, is already occupied by Google's protobuf Python
code [3]. To fix this issue I suggest to rename your module to
protobuf.socket.rpc. I worked on the necessary changes and added a
working patch to your issue tracker [4]. I hope you consider this
change to avoid name conflicts, not only with python-protobuf, which
is more of a Debian policy issue, but with potential other protobuf
extensions.
It would be nice to have a upstream changelog in the source tarball, I
filed an issue to add it too [5].
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602004
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names
[3] http://packages.debian.org/sid/python-protobuf
[4] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-socket-rpc/issues/detail?id=17
[5] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-socket-rpc/issues/detail?id=16
I also got the impression that the Python structure was a bit (too
much) inspired by Maven's directory structure conventions, which is a
good thing for Java projects but not as much for Python projects. If
you are interested I would like to refactor the directory structure
and setup.py to create a more pythonic package (including a working
python setup.py test for running unit tests).
Regards
Jan Dittberner
--
Jan Dittberner - Debian Developer
GPG-key: 4096R/558FB8DD 2009-05-10
B2FF 1D95 CE8F 7A22 DF4C F09B A73E 0055 558F B8DD
http://www.dittberner.info/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature