On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:53:08PM +0000, xantares 09 wrote: > > > Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:59:08 +0000 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [aur-general] Remove python3-aur > > > > I have no intention of playing whack-a-mole with Python package names > > whenever > > Python gets around to the next major version bump even if that is years > > away. > > Each major version is incompatible with the previous ones and should > > therefore > > be treated as a separate language. Changing the names leads to transition > > periods of broken dependency graphs. Package names should be static and > > future > > proof. This makes it easier for everyone involved (developers, packagers, > > users). > > > > There are numerous python3-* packages that have peacefully existed in the > > AUR > > for years without issue. As I have so far been unable to convince others of > > the > > value of persistent naming, I prefer to leave things as they are. > > > > Regards, > > Xyne > > I wouldn't go as far as qualifying python3 a different laguage. It may > introduce api breakage, But it's possible to adapt the same codebase to be > compatible with both versions. > > They are some python3-* packages, yes, but they mostly belong to you :! > > What do we do from here ? Remove python-aur :? > > Regards, > xan. >
I don't see any problem with leaving them as python3-*. In my mind, python2-*, python3-* are unambiguously named, and python-* merely refers to the "current stable". However, I have seen python-* refer to both python2 and python3, depending on how old the package or upstream is. I think the best policy would be to change python-* to python2-* when that disambiguation is necessary, and let python3-* well enough alone. They clearly describe the package, so what's the problem? Allen
