Am 10.07.2013 16:30, schrieb Stuart Prescott: > 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. > > Rules for packaging things are normally there to solve problems of > interoperability and to assist QA efforts. Which of these is it going to > help? > >> Never the less, I think we should collectively decide what to do, rather >> than continuing the mess, with everyone having its own rule. > > What mess? If there is a perceived mess, why is that a problem in any case? > How does it help to make a new rule? Who does it help? What problem does > this solve? Why is any intellectual energy being spent on this at all?
energy? maybe. but intellectual? > It looks exceedingly like a rule for the sake of having a rule. It will be > an exceedingly complicated rule in that it will have to cover python > modules, python applications and other libraries that offer python bindings > all separately. It will have to be accompanied an explanation of why so many > packages don't follow it because they were uploaded prior to the rule > existing. Basically... unless we are going to force every existing source > package to change name to comply with this rule there is no point in having > it (and no-one has advocated renaming source packages as is useless work for > everyone). It is good to have a naming schema for binary packages, however it is easy to get from there to the name of the source package. I think I got some bug reports to include the upstream source name into the short package description when it doesn't match the module name, so that it can be found by apt-cache -n search. But again, no need for a policy here. Matthias -- 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/51dd84a6.8020...@debian.org
