[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#602004: Packaging protobuf-socket-rpc for Debian



I would prefer protobuf.socketrpc to be consistent with the java package name. I'll add you as developer. Make sure the description of the new download mentions that it is not backward compatible since package names have changed.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Jan Dittberner <jandd@debian.org> wrote:
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/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJMzeH0AAoJEKc+AFVVj7jd238QANxeqChvCbKpr75iUrblhANA
t+u6ozH9HKrI3er8v363RcUtzTiWcXhw0vMsa0J4WT+WX3Mxwv+XyN/z7e0IcEje
LRWAKqP2WcfyhmWy+G70kW4jhvU5ckccDkuMLBvodXw40obOzUWMiWJskNdB80k3
76mZlRNLusSlBH5MwfMv6OSfzjwh72S8dBvTg8KVRSCv9ylv9YxPCZyLnYhwbXXv
8pEJob1cr9/LB4jhWAnSBzd2X8K6iqp/rFl9LGGrNmMM8EHgDa1QBtYWgSncsWM8
8OmcPV5HmO+sBvX4pmJ4azaiedkzGr7uAd6IVeiVMSSV91axTv+WvbuR9GgvFp4A
RLHD3+mbvAZ4RzYC+x/8CFbrDUBJ2GtdhLaaJwUh0NA9e5IIJmxnM+PtFV7G5r/s
hKNK0LwHbK8enGgkKlnkOFA68QP7lhG2gCp7XjiPMPPvba5qy+yNtdXY3v1aDkR2
G3fVT2PdBAwzhKpuQCpUnjvFgkArpMfYeegJc32lK7594D0JCFy13d8LODkVCQqu
ANbDzseafGJxDpvoDYIB/lIXEIoKylFANxGzVCy+6yhqaV+Zn8pBsMbusWPBdwIM
x2sDFillPv/dXSWuNwoXjiWzwF696FMlXMJSW/xmsNUGSAm2EwBxW0wbAkUa8pum
ed9onf4q/yoyLlq/KG4S
=eXz8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: