Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 02:40:06 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29] > > > Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual, > > even if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in > > policy so we can at least document current

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-29 Thread Piotr Ożarowski
[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29] > Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual, > even > if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in policy so we > can at least document current practice? if module name is foo, name of the binary package should be

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-29 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 01:52:07 PM Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on > > > > wording. > > > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults > > > > upload with

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on wording. > > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults > > > upload with this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending. +1 from me. I'm

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-29 Thread Raphael Hertzog
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Piotr Ożarowski wrote: > [Barry Warsaw, 2016-11-28] > > Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a > > 3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage? e.g. python3-django-foo > > vs. python3-django.foo. > > > > I'm sure it's a non-issue in