On Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:04:24 AM IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> On 2017-01-18 07:46, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > +··named·django_packagename·upstream.··These·are·then·packaged·as
> > +··python3-django-package·and
>
> please use "package" vs "packagename" consistently.
> e.g.
On 2017-01-18 07:46, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> +··named·django_packagename·upstream.··These·are·then·packaged·as
> +··python3-django-package·and
please use "package" vs "packagename" consistently.
e.g. an upstream named "django_packagename" should be packaged as
"python3-django-pa
On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:43:29 AM Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Raphael, do you think that the upstream Django project might be willing to
> > make some kind of best practices for naming third party django packages?
> > If they did that
Hi,
On Wed, 30 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> Raphael, do you think that the upstream Django project might be willing to
> make some kind of best practices for naming third party django packages? If
> they did that, then that would give us a basis for Debian maintainers talking
> to their
On 2016-12-03 17:01:45 +0100 (+0100), Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> Because of problems when doing imports in Python3 (in a venv, the system
> module wont be loaded if it's there and there's already something in the
> venv), we should attempt to discourage upstream to use namespaced
> modules. This
On 11/28/2016 05:11 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
> noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
> different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we
> use
> python*-django
On 11/28/2016 05:30 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
>> @@ -534,6 +534,13 @@
>> This requirement also applies to extension modules; binaries for all
>> the supported Python versions should be included in a single package.
>>
>> + As a s
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 02:40:06 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29]
>
> > Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual,
> > even if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in
> > policy so we can at least document current pr
[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-29]
> Piotr: Is there some language that acknowledges the situation as unusual,
> even
> if it doesn't fully bless it that you'd be comfortable with in policy so we
> can at least document current practice?
if module name is foo, name of the binary package should be py
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 01:52:07 PM Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on
> > > > wording.
> > > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults
> > > > upload with this
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on wording.
> > > I'd like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults
> > > upload with this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending.
+1 from me. I'm actuall
On Mon, 28 Nov 2016, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Barry Warsaw, 2016-11-28]
> > Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a
> > 3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage? e.g. python3-django-foo
> > vs. python3-django.foo.
> >
> > I'm sure it's a non-issue in pr
On Monday, November 28, 2016 05:50:24 PM Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
>
> > I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
> > noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
> > different naming convention for such packag
[Barry Warsaw, 2016-11-28]
> Is there any risk of having confusing names because of a conflict between a
> 3rd party Django module and a Django subpackage? e.g. python3-django-foo
> vs. python3-django.foo.
>
> I'm sure it's a non-issue in practice.
this is a huge issue IMHO beacause Django submo
[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
> I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
> noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
> different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we
> use
> python*-django-foo.
>
> I thin
+1
On 28/11/2016 17:11, Scott Kitterman wrote:
Snark on #debian-python
On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:11 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>@@ -534,6 +534,13 @@
> This requirement also applies to extension modules; binaries for all
> the supported Python versions should be included in a single package.
>
>+ As a special exception to the `python3-' and `python-' binar
I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and
noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly
different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we use
python*-django-foo.
I think this is a reasonable approach and followed
18 matches
Mail list logo
