On 28/03/2015 7:03 AM, Dmitry Sivachenko wrote: > >> On 27 марта 2015 г., at 12:52, Antoine Brodin <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Dmitry Sivachenko >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 27 марта 2015 г., at 2:36, Antoine Brodin >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Author: antoine Date: Thu Mar 26 23:36:02 2015 New Revision: >>>> 382357 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/382357 >>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r382357/ >>>> >>>> Log: New port: archivers/py-python-snappy >>> >>> >>> Isn't this "python" in the middle excessive? Why not just >>> py-snappy? >> >> Upstream decided to name it python-snappy. When you use pip, you >> "pip install python-snappy" etc. >> > > > Yes, but you also added "py-" prefix, so with it "python-" became > excessive. Either py-snappy or python-snappy, but since "py-" is a > standard for FreeBSD ports, "python-" should be removed IMHO. > >
The current target state (from Python@'s point of view) is: * Match upstream PyPi name, AND * py- prefix Unless there is a VERY compelling case *not* to do so. Exceptions to this *may* be pure CLI utility or "end-user" products, such as: sysutils/bsdploy devel/buildbot Even the above examples may not ultimately last as prefix-less ports in the tree longer term. There have been packaging naming conflicts in the past (some that still exist) due to the lack of a clear and consistent convention. One example is: twitter and python-twitter There are numerous others, and will continue to be in the future as upstreams control the names of their projects and packages. Kubilay _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-python To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
