On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > Xyne didn't appear to have write access so passing on his message as follows: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Xyne <[email protected]> > Date: 14 September 2012 19:57 > Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Python 3.3.0 and PEP 394 > > > Rashif Ray Rahman wrote: > >>Good one, we must provide for that. Nevertheless, what I meant was >>_not_ to have: >> >>python-qt >>python2-qt >>python-gtk >>python2-gtk >> >>But to have: >> >>pyqt >>python2-pyqt >>pygtk >>python2-pygtk >> >>As we have now. Prepending 'python' everywhere is fine, as long as the >>'pyX' name remains. Now the ideal scenario would be: >> >>John: Fetch me 'pyalpm' >>Pacman: Do you want python(3)-pyalpm or python2-pyalpm? >> >>Now that I look at it that way prepending 'python' would be better. > > > I also think that prefixing "python" in all cases makes sense. The prefix > indicates that it is a library/module in our naming scheme and omitting it > even > in the case of naming redundancy (e.g. python-py*) creates exceptions to an > otherwise uniform rule. > > I also strongly support the idea of using > > python3-foo > python2-foo > > even if Python 4 may be a long way off. It is a consistent naming scheme that > is completely unambiguous and it will avoid considerable hassle when Python 4 > is finally released.
I think it's not a matter of time. If python 4 is released with no major breaking with python 3, update will be smooth and we will never want to have a python4-foo and python3-foo like we don't want to have python3.2-foo and python3.3-foo. Another case, I talked with some python dev last week which explain me that python3 can be considered as a new language. They also suggest that /usr/bin/python should remains python2 and new program should use python3 in there sheebang (as mark of compatibily) Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer www.seblu.net
