Thomas Goirand <> 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).



Reply via email to