Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> writes: > On 03/13/2018 12:29 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: >> 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`. > > Very often, "foo" is already taken by another package, and we have to > fallback to python-foo. Think about generic libs for compression, > images, network standards... > > Which is why I think we should have standardize on python-foo for the > source package (which is what I do).
I disagree. Often packages already signalize their Python origin: astropy, sunpy, pyephem etc. Or relate to pytest (pytest-mpl for example). Or provide a Python package just as one of many other packages (plplot). Prefixing them with "python-" increases useless redundancy, and makes it harder for external people to find the package. I would deviate from the rule of thumb "stick with the upstream name unless there is a (potential) conflict". And if there is a conflict, talk to upstream to find a solution -- it is quite probable that it will lead to file conflicts as well (tools/apps in /usr/bin). Best Ole
