Ghislain Vaillant <ghisv...@gmail.com> writes: > Definitely [do not name the documentation package ‘python3-foo-doc’], > indeed. The python- prefixes in python-foo and python-foo-doc are not > exactly equivalent. The former usage refers to the Python 2 > interpreter, the latter refers to Python *the language*.
Yes, that's how I understand the distinction. Thank you for expressing that. > It's unfortunate our naming convention did not explicitly separate > between both as Arch packages do, whereby `python` is used for source > package and `python2` for binary packages targeting CPython 2.x. Yes. Another point: The name of the documentation package should not depend on whether there is a Python 2 library package. So, the presence or absence of ‘python-foo’ should not change the name of ‘python-foo-doc’. > Imo, we should just make it clear in policy that source packages > should be named `foo` or `python-foo`, and corresponding doc packages > should be named `foo-doc` or `python-foo-doc`. +1. -- \ "Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are | `\ fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." —“Lord” George | _o__) Gordon Noel Byron | Ben Finney