Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648986 Jussi Lehtola <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Jussi Lehtola <[email protected]> 2010-11-18 09:55:17 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > From my point of view the main point here is that you *can* use that > (upstream) > name. There's no 'should' or 'strong suggestion'. On the other hand, "General Naming When naming a package, the name should match the upstream tarball or project name from which this software came. In some cases, this naming choice may be more complicated. If this package has been packaged by other distributions/packagers in the past, then you should try to match their name for consistency. In any case, try to use your best judgement, and other developers will help in the final decision." > "They should take into account the upstream name of the python module. This > makes a package name format of python-$NAME. When in doubt, use the name of > the > module that you type to import it in a script." > > We use 'import cups' and 'import smbc' in Python scripts which gives me a > python-cups and python-smbc package names. This is true - the Python modules are not named consistently. (In reply to comment #6) > I don't have a strong point of view about this either way. If I were naming > the upstream tarballs again today I would probably choose "python-cups" and > "python-smbc". Very well. You could still do this, you know ;) ** Everything has been fixed, so this package has been APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
