David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Schemenauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 2.3. Module Package Names
> > -------------------------
> >
> > Python module packages should be named for the primary module
> > provided. The naming convention for module `foo' is `python-foo'.
> > Packages which include multiple modules may additionally include
> > provides for those modules using the same convention.
>
> What happened to the libfoo-python idea (for consistency with the perl
> and, presumably, java convention)? I'm personally happy with python-foo, but
> understand the arguments in favor consistency.
>
> Is there good reason not to adopt that now?
We could perhaps differenciate python modules and bindings.
For example, libxml bindings for Python would be libxml-python.
Also, python-gtk would become libgtk-python, python-gnome would become
libgnome-python
and so on.
However, xml tools for python would stay python-xml.
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CV consultable à l'adresse : http://marant.org
