Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?
On 11/27/20 1:13 PM, Simon McVittie wrote: > A good way to decide this is to think about what we would do if we had a > Python 4 that is incompatible with Python 3 (which I assume will happen > eventually, although hopefully not for a few years). It is very likely that you're wrongly guessing. Numerous times, the Python upstream people wrote that the py2 to py3 transition was a bad idea, and they will not do the same kind of mistake again, and that there probably wont be a Python 4 anytime. Which is why I thought merging the content of python3-babel and python3-babel-localedata would be a good idea. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?
On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 22:33:19 +0100, Steffen Möller wrote: > On 26.11.20 13:16, Nilesh Patra wrote: > > Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries: > > > > * python3-babel > > * python-babel-doc > > * python-babel-localedata > > > > of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the > > documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files > > used by python3-babel. > > > > Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They > > do not contain any actual code though > > I propose to have the "3" only for packages that depend on python3. The > source package name, documentation and data package names should not be > versioned. For the documentation, https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/module_packages.html says python-babel-doc is correct (I wrote this wording, but the python3-defaults maintainers merged it and I think there's consensus that it's right): If the documentation for a module foo provided in python3-foo is large enough that a separate binary package for documentation is desired, then the documentation package should preferably be named python-foo-doc (and in particular, not python3-foo-doc). For the locale data, the policy doesn't say either way (Python libraries with separate version-independent data are somewhat rare), but I agree that python- is likely to be the most appropriate choice here too. A good way to decide this is to think about what we would do if we had a Python 4 that is incompatible with Python 3 (which I assume will happen eventually, although hopefully not for a few years). If these packages would be shared between python3-babel and python4-babel, then they should be named with an unversioned python- prefix. That's the reasoning for why the documentation gets a python- prefix. The unversioned python- namespace is shared between "Python 2 specifically" and "not specific to a Python version" for historical reasons: Python 1.x and 2.x were sufficiently compatible that there was no need to distinguish between python1-foo and python2-foo. smcv
Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?
Hi Nilesh, On 26.11.20 13:16, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Hi, > > Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries: > > * python3-babel > * python-babel-doc > * python-babel-localedata > > of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the > documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files > used by python3-babel. > > Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They > do not contain any actual code though > > BTW this also has a RC bug, and I pushed the fix to salsa. If it needs > a renaming, it'd be great if someone could upload it to NEW. > > If not, I'll do a source-only-upload. > Please let me know what you think of this. I propose to have the "3" only for packages that depend on python3. The source package name, documentation and data package names should not be versioned. Best, Steffen
Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?
On 11/26/20 1:16 PM, Nilesh Patra wrote: > Hi, > > Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries: > > * python3-babel > * python-babel-doc > * python-babel-localedata > > of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the > documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files > used by python3-babel. > > Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They do > not contain any actual code though > > BTW this also has a RC bug, and I pushed the fix to salsa. If it needs a > renaming, it'd be great if someone could upload it to NEW. > > If not, I'll do a source-only-upload. > Please let me know what you think of this. > > Kind regards > Nilesh Hi, It used to be that we had a python-babel that also needed the data in python-babel-localedata, which was shared by both the Python 2 and 3 packages. Now, we don't have it anymore. So probably, what could be done, is move all the files in python3-babel, and get rid of python-babel-localedata completely. python-babel-doc is still the correct package name for the doc (unless the amount of doc is small and could be integrated in python3-babel as well). If that's the way to go, then python3-babel needs a Breaks+Replaces: python-babel-localedata. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?
Hi, Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries: * python3-babel * python-babel-doc * python-babel-localedata of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files used by python3-babel. Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They do not contain any actual code though BTW this also has a RC bug, and I pushed the fix to salsa. If it needs a renaming, it'd be great if someone could upload it to NEW. If not, I'll do a source-only-upload. Please let me know what you think of this. Kind regards Nilesh