On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 12:55:33PM +0100, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hmm. Is it now a program or a module? In the latter case the pakcage > name would be right but then rst2odt, the manpage etc. shoudln't be in > there. > > OTOH, this looks like a private module for just the rst2odt program, in > which case the package should be called "rst2odt". Splitting the package > up doesn't make that much sense given that it's a) a internal module and > b) __init__.py is only 88K
First of all, the package enhances python-docutils in that it adds an
extra output format, a “writer,” to its capabilities. A minimum-size
re-implementation of rst2odt could look like this:
#!/usr/bin/python
from docutils.core import publish_cmdline
publish_cmdline(writer_name='odtwriter')
(The real implementation of rst2odt is longer because of operating
systems which make a difference between text and binary file output.)
Therefore, the module is not really private; it is at least known to
docutils and can be used in any program which uses docutils’ API.
Then, the main reason why I have chosen to use this name is that calling
it rst2odt would be inconsequent; python-docutils also contains rst2*
scripts and is not named after them, even though they arguably provide
the interface that is used most of the time. So I think it is not the
worst solution to stick with “python-odtwriter”—something like
“python-docutils-odtwriter” would still make sense to me, but that’s a
bit bulky.
Ccing debian-python to get some more opinions.
Thanks for your comment,
--
Michael Schutte <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
