Bringing bug 1023512 [0] to the Debian Python list: [0] https://bugs.debian.org/1023512
> > According to the Debian Python Policy Section 4.3, binary package > > names should be named after the *import* name of the module, not the > > PyPI distribution name. > Unfortunately, I do not agree at all with this policy. The import name has > no importance, and IMO, we should change that policy so that the package > name matches the egg-name rather than the import name. I wouldn't quite say it has no importance. It describes which part of the filesystem the package owns. I don't know the history of this policy offhand, but I presume it's also because not all Python modules come from PyPI, and we needed a standard way to address them. Also, we sometimes break PyPI distributions up into separate binary packages. They are closer to a source package than a Debian binary package. FIWIW: I am not convinced that Python made the right decision in allowing distribution names to diverge from import names, it tends to just create confusion. But that's neither here nor there. > In many places, that would make our life of package maintainer better. A > good example is all the oslo libraries in OpenStack, that all have a dot in > their egg-name, but an underscore in the import path (so that it works > better under python3). In this specific case, using the dash instead of the > dot would be really stupid and break many things, like automation for > dependencies. Presumably that can be solved with a few automated adjustments, (like the . -> _ transformation you describe). Having a straightforward distribution name -> package name mapping would make automating dependencies simpler, I agree. But we have tooling that handles that already: dh-python and its' pydist data. > In fact, this extend to all of the Debian Python module archive. > > If you want to discuss this further, please open a thread in the list. I don't think the solution here is for your packages to use distribution-derived names while everyone else's use the policy-defined names. Can we rather come to a consensus on what we should be using? My vote would be strongly towards maintaining the status quo of the policy-defined names. I don't see any strong argument for changing this. Stefano -- Stefano Rivera http://tumbleweed.org.za/ +1 415 683 3272
