On 17 May 2014 02:17, Barry Warsaw <ba...@debian.org> wrote: > On May 15, 2014, at 11:38 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>Shouldn't it be singular? Each package provides a wheel, not several wheels >>(and I'd name the location the same for consistency). > > I thought about this. True, in all current cases there's a single wheel file > in the binary package. I wanted to leave open the possibility that a binary > package could contain multiple wheels, but I agree that's a weak argument > given the scope we're trying to limit here. > > Two mild reasons I went with plurals in the package name: I think the > directory where these get laid down on the file system *should* be plural, > since it *will* hold multiple wheels, and I wanted the binary package name to > reflect that. > > Also, since we now have python-wheel and python3-wheel packages, which contain > the PyPI wheel package, I thought it was confusing to name the built-wheel > packages with the same suffix. E.g. python-wheel and python-urllib3-wheel > would by naming appear to have a relationship that they actually don't have. > It seemed clearer that the latter would be called python-urllib3-wheels. > > It's bikeshedding, but anyway that was my rationale for choosing the names I > did.
Whats the tiebreak logic for a package foo.wheels (e.g. if py.wheels comes along, will it be python-py-wheels-wheels for the wheels for it?) Did you consider using python-wheels-urllib3 ? -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caj3hoz1kn0-+hemsjt7_vq3pgsidrhao-eufsn07uk0mfd5...@mail.gmail.com
