On Jul 10, 2013, at 02:58 PM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >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.
While I'm in favor of more consistency, I'm not sure it will be possible to come up with a hard and fast rule. As for consistency, the discussion here should help and we can promote recommendations in our wiki/docs and when we review packages. As I've stated, my own personal preference is to name the source package after the PyPI name (which usually means without the `python-` prefix) unless there are extenuating circumstances, e.g. collisions or confusions with other packages. We already have rules for naming the binary packages. -Barry -- 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/20130710090539.46a0eb12@anarchist
