Bringing bug 1023512 [0] to the Debian Python list:
[0] https://bugs.debian.org/1023512
> > According to the Debian Python Policy Section 4.3, binary package
> > names should be named after the *import* name of the module, not the
> > PyPI distribution name.
> Unfortunately, I do not agree at all
Hi debian-python (2023.08.11_14:49:00_+)
> I don't think the solution here is for your packages to use
> distribution-derived names while everyone else's use the policy-defined
> names. Can we rather come to a consensus on what we should be using?
I should say, of course, that we have a histor
On Friday, August 11, 2023 10:49:00 AM EDT Stefano Rivera wrote:
> My vote would be strongly towards maintaining the status quo of the
> policy-defined names.
>
> I don't see any strong argument for changing this.
Fully agreed. In addition to the reasons you listed, renaming a lot of
packages w
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 at 14:49:00 +, Stefano Rivera wrote:
> > > According to the Debian Python Policy Section 4.3, binary package
> > > names should be named after the *import* name of the module, not the
> > > PyPI distribution name.
>
> > Unfortunately, I do not agree at all with this policy.
> >
>
> Thanks so much! I see you've already started on dask :)
>
> I took at quick look at arrow - yikes! There is potentially work
> afoot on this though:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=970021
>
Dask & dask.distributed 2023.8.0 was easier to update than some of the
oth
5 matches
Mail list logo
