On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 02:40:06 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29]
> > Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual,
> > even if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in
> > policy so we can at least document current practice?
> if module name is foo, name of the binary package should be python3-foo,
> not python3-bar-foo. There is no change needed on the upstream side or
> in django/__init__.py - it's just about naming binary packages the way
> our policy recommends. Adjusting policy to document good changes we came
> up in practice is good. Documenting bad ones is not.
> That said, I don't have a veto vote so I will just have to deal with it.

I can see your point.  I can see Raphael's too.

I do think that upstream third parties using django_foo represents some kind 
of best practice that should be documented and encouraged (but not directly by 

Raphael, do you think that the upstream Django project might be willing to 
make some kind of best practices for naming third party django packages?  If 
they did that, then that would give us a basis for Debian maintainers talking 
to their upstreams about moving to django_.

Over time, that would result in python-django-foo being the correct name 
without any kind of Python policy exception (and we'd limit this to being 

How's that?

Scott K

Reply via email to