Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
On 07/08/2013 10:10 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > There is no policy on this either way, so there's no "mistake". Well, the mistake is precisely to have no rule, IMO. On 07/08/2013 11:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > Hopefully, it will become more and more common to have at least > python-X and python3-X. With that in mind, many of our source > packages that are producing a single binary package today should > hopefully be producing two or more binary packages tomorrow. Never the less, I think we should collectively decide what to do, rather than continuing the mess, with everyone having its own rule. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51dd0631.5000...@debian.org
Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
Another rule of thumb I use is that if a project is not just about python module but also provides some GUI or CUI interface which might be used by users without realizing presence of a python behind I do not prefix with python-, eg psychopy. Sandro Tosi wrote: >On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Scott Kitterman >wrote: >> There is no policy on this either way, so there's no "mistake". >Personally, I >> tend to use the upstream name for the source package name and >> python-$modulename (per Python policy) for the binary. > >I'm using the same same rule, with just one exception: I'm calling >source package python-X if X is too generic (see python-psutil, where >upstream is calling the project psutil, too close to psutils). I don't >feel there's anything to "fix" here, or to write a policy for source >package name. > >Regards, >-- >Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) >My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ >Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- Sent from a phone which beats iPhone. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/89e4a6bb-fc21-4c30-a1d7-b08808406...@email.android.com
Re: Inconsistency in source package naming for python modules
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > There is no policy on this either way, so there's no "mistake". Personally, I > tend to use the upstream name for the source package name and > python-$modulename (per Python policy) for the binary. I'm using the same same rule, with just one exception: I'm calling source package python-X if X is too generic (see python-psutil, where upstream is calling the project psutil, too close to psutils). I don't feel there's anything to "fix" here, or to write a policy for source package name. Regards, -- Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu) My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/cab4xwxwkkbo23b4nlgvnqxctsfoeprnqztuqgggmkrwj9qv...@mail.gmail.com
