[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
> 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 
> python*-django-foo.
> 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 
> Sid:
> 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.

-1 from me

If Django packages have no use outside Django¹, they should be moved out²
of public dist-packages IMO. If they are useful, "-django" part is misleading.

[¹] dash suggest they're not in django namespace, otherwise binary
    package name would be python3-django.foo
    (or python3-django.ext.foo, like in flask?)
[²] sys.path.append('/usr/lib/python3/django-packages/') in
    django/__init__.py if django import always prepends other imports
    (python3-django- namespace would be tolerable then, I guess)
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

Reply via email to