On Wed, 2001-09-26 at 11:37, Jérôme Marant wrote: > 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.
terrible. while changing all packages to use libXXX-python is aceptable, the best thing is to stick to python-XXX. a lot of people expect it this way and is at least coherent. -- Federico Di Gregorio MIXAD LIVE Chief of Research & Technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qu'est ce que la folie? Juste un sentiment de liberté si fort qu'on en oublie ce qui nous rattache au monde... -- J. de Loctra
