On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:

>@@ -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.

+1 but I have a question since I'm not a hardcore Django developer.

In many cases we have namespace packages, e.g. zope.*, flufl.*, etc.  Usually
these will be called python-<main>.<sub>, e.g. python-flufl.i18n.

Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a
3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage?  e.g. python3-django-foo
vs. python3-django.foo.

I'm sure it's a non-issue in practice.


Attachment: pgpPkLIxR9pNA.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to