Hi Maciej,
Am 13.11.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski:
2009/9/25 Trygve Laugstøl <[email protected]>:
Ben Walton wrote:
Excerpts from Sebastian Kayser's message of Thu Sep 24 17:38:12
-0400 2009:
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?.
Logical and concise. +1.
Ditto. +1.
There's also the question of pkgnames, is it CSWpyfoo or CSWpy-foo? If
one follows the rule that "each _ becomes a -", we sometimes end up
with CSWpy-foo and sometimes CSWpyfoo.
I wrote down what I thought is the outcome of this policy (except for
the point 3). Here's the table:
http://wiki.opencsw.org/python-packages-naming
This is a good writeup! I would have wished we had this for
other packages a long time ago. The current standard however
discourages the use of '-' in package names for *devel, *rt,
etc. Don't get me wrong: I don't like the way it is, but there
is at least some consistency in not having hyphens at all
and converting the packages would require hooks to clean up.
Having a consistent mapping between catalogname and
packagenames is a Very Good Thing(tm), but I don't see
how we can achieve it with the technology we have right now.
Best regards
-- Dago
_______________________________________________
maintainers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
