I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and 
noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly 
different naming convention for such packages.  Instead of python*-foo, we use 

I think this is a reasonable approach and followed it in the new packages I've 
recently done.

I decided to check and see how common the approach is.  Here's what I found in 

Start with django: 7
Start w/django, not transitional: 2
Start with django3: 0

Start with python-django (excluding -doc): 136
Start with python3-django: 84

I think it would make sense to add this to the Python policy so how we're 
doing it is documented.  I am attaching a proposed diff.  I made it a should 
because there are two non-DPMT packages that don't follow this rule and I 
think it's late in the cycle to be adding to must policy requirements.

Please let me know what you think.  I'm open to suggestions on wording.  I'd 
like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults upload with 
this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending.

Scott K

@@ -534,6 +534,13 @@
      This requirement also applies to extension modules; binaries for all
      the supported Python versions should be included in a single package.
+     As a special exception to the `python3-' and `python-' binary naming
+     policy, Python modules intended for use with Django (`python3-django'/
+     `python-django') should add django to their binary package names to
+     make it clear they are intended for use with Django and not general
+     purpose Python modules, i.e.  `python3-django-' and `python-django-'
+     respectively.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply via email to