On 2016-04-11 07:33, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
At this point, it looks like the python modules will be changing the
distribution name, but not the actual module name (i.e., pip install
<new name>, but import letsencrypt). If that stays the same, I think
it's probably OK for us to leave the name of python-letsencrypt alone.
I think we should turn letsencrypt into a virtual package and Provide
it
from <new name>. I'm not 100% sure what to do with the
python-letsencrypt-apache module, though. It /is/ technically user
facing, in that you need to install that module to have the
functionality and we don't Recommend it (since that would pull in
apache2). But it also seems a bit strange to have a package
python-<new
name>-apache which installs an actual module named letsencrypt-apache.
I suppose we could do something with a virtual package here
(python-<new
name>-apache Provides python-letsencrypt-apache), but...
I'd appreciate some advice here. What do you all think?
Can't we just keep python-letsencrypt-apache since that's the name that
actually matters to users?
If they ever change the "import" name, then we should probably rename
the binary packages, but in the meantime, it's probably less confusing
to stick with the existing names.
Francois
_______________________________________________
Letsencrypt-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/letsencrypt-devel
