On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Bernardo Barros <[email protected]>wrote:
> python3-* do not make sense on a rolling release distro. > > In Fedora, for example, they do. Then in Fedora 16 or whatever, they > just switch names. No problem. > > For a rolling release distro I think we might think with an eye ahead > to avoid future problems. > For example, take to python packages, A and B: A has a python3 > version, B does not have one yet. > Since we don't have a python3 version of B, we say right now: > > 'Oh, there is no reason to name a package python2-B since there is > no python3 version yet...' > > Is that really true? I don't think so.. Because then we name them: > python2-A, python-A, python-B. > > Three months later a python3 version of B is released, then we called > it python3-B... or.. we will have double work renaming stuff. > Even worse if they have different maintainers... > > I think the solution is to be *very* consistent with packages names > whatever the situation of the python3 version is right now. > In other words: pick a guideline and stick to it. If > python2-X/python-X is the way to go, no matter there is a python3 > package or not, use this convention... > agreed, I would prefer if we used python2-* and python3-* and probably no python-*
