Ghislain Vaillant <> 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.


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`.


 \       "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

Reply via email to