Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-28 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-28 Thread Barry Warsaw
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

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-28 Thread Julien Puydt
+1 On 28/11/2016 17:11, Scott Kitterman wrote: Snark on #debian-python

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-28 Thread Piotr Ożarowski
[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

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-28 Thread Piotr Ożarowski
[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

Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages

2016-11-28 Thread Scott Kitterman
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

Re: pip for stretch

2016-11-28 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Nov 21, 2016, at 06:37 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: >As one might expect, I would prefer it if folks got 9.0.1 as quickly as >possible. In particular the feature that makes it easier for upstreams to >drop Python 2 support is one that is really only effective when people can >consider pip 9 a "mini

Re: pip for stretch

2016-11-28 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Nov 28, 2016, at 01:56 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >I'm starting to work on pip 9.0.1 but noticed two new dependencies. appdirs >1.4.0 we have, but distro 1.0.1 we don't. It doesn't look like there's an ITP >for that, so I'll file that bug. Okay, as soon as python-distro clears new, I'll upload

RFS: python-patch 1.16

2016-11-28 Thread Paolo Greppi
Hi, I packaged python-patch as per this ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/845482, this is the repo: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-patch.git Please someone more experienced than me review it and if it's OK sponsor its upload. Please note that since the pypi tarball has

RFS: python-jsonref 0.1

2016-11-28 Thread Paolo Greppi
Hi, I packaged python-jsonref as per this ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/844986, this is the repo: https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/python-modules/packages/python-jsonref.git Please someone more experienced than me review it and if it's OK sponsor its upload. Thanks, Paolo signature.asc Descrip