Philip Brown wrote on 24.09.2009 18:59: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Sebastian Kayser <[email protected]> wrote: >> py_<modulename> >> >> Here, <modulename> is absolutely non-ambiguous; one refers to this name >> when importing a python module. Would a general policy like this (also >> applied to pyyaml, modulename: yaml) hurt? I don't think so. > > PS: I forgot to mention my thoughts, that for PURE "modules" only, > this makes a good idea of sense to me. > But what about python "applications"? or what about things that are > part module, and part application?
I just went through our packages to get a feeling of what we have. In the "part module, part application" or "python application" section, i would see people being interested in the application, not in the modules. The contained modules most likely only support the application after all. Examples: - mercurial - buildbot - trac - fetchmailconf - gitosis - ... Makes sense to keep the upstream name here. There are some corner cases like "twisted" [1] or "pil" [2], where i wouldn't know offhand what to do best (they are mainly libs, but also have some stuff in /opt/csw/bin). So how about 1) If it's a pure module, py_<modulename>. 2) If it's main use is as application, <upstreamname>. 3) In case of doubt, cross-check with other distributions?. With step 1) un-ambiguously catching alot and step 2) then being an easy call mostly, we will have covered the majority of packages. The few remaining ones might as well be decided on a case-by-case basis. Sebastian [1] http://www.opencsw.org/packages/twisted [2] http://www.opencsw.org/packages/pil _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
