On Aug 06, 2015, at 05:08 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
>everything that doesn't match python[\d.]*- is fine IMHO.
Here's some language for DPP:
=== modified file 'debian/python-policy.sgml'
--- debian/python-policy.sgml 2015-02-27 23:09:27 +
+++ debian/python-policy.sgml 2015-08-06 19:04:4
On Aug 06, 2015, at 04:20 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
>Policy has this to say on the subject of a different flat global namespace:
>
>"When scripts are installed into a directory in the system PATH, the
>script name should not include an extension such as .sh or .pl that
>denotes the scripting langu
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 17:08:35 +0200, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> [Barry Warsaw, 2015-08-06]
> > Should there be a naming convention for Python packages which only provide
> > an
> > executable?
>
> everything that doesn't match python[\d.]*- is fine IMHO.
>
> If "tox" is too generic, use tox-py
On 06/08/15 15:50, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> The example that sparked issue #751908 was tox, which when I initially
> packaged it, I called the binary package python-tox. I did this because,
> while the package does not provide any publicly importable modules, I felt it
> was presumptuous to claim a r
[Barry Warsaw, 2015-08-06]
> Should there be a naming convention for Python packages which only provide an
> executable?
everything that doesn't match python[\d.]*- is fine IMHO.
If "tox" is too generic, use tox-python
--
Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.oza
5 matches
Mail list logo
