Path: csiph.com!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Binary naming for Django Related Packages
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2016 18:10:01 +0100
Message-ID: <sIxBf-4SJ-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <sIwOR-4kz-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sIxrA-4y6-27@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debian@kitterman.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-101-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 86
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9042

On Monday, November 28, 2016 05:50:24 PM Piotr O=C5=BCarowski wrote:
> [Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28]
>=20
> > 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 sli=
ghtly
> > different naming convention for such packages.  Instead of python*-=
foo, we
> > use python*-django-foo.
> >=20
> > I think this is a reasonable approach and followed it in the new pa=
ckages
> > I've recently done.
> >=20
> > I decided to check and see how common the approach is.  Here's what=
 I
> > found in Sid:
> >=20
> > Start with django: 7
> > Start w/django, not transitional: 2
> > Start with django3: 0
> >=20
> > Start with python-django (excluding -doc): 136
> > Start with python3-django: 84
> >=20
> > I think it would make sense to add this to the Python policy so how=
 we're
> > doing it is documented.  I am attaching a proposed diff.  I made it=
 a
> > should because there are two non-DPMT packages that don't follow th=
is
> > rule and I think it's late in the cycle to be adding to must policy=

> > requirements.
> >=20
> > Please let me know what you think.  I'm open to suggestions on word=
ing.=20
> > 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 pend=
ing.
>=20
> -1 from me
>=20
>=20
> If Django packages have no use outside Django=C2=B9, they should be m=
oved out=C2=B2
> of public dist-packages IMO. If they are useful, "-django" part is
> misleading.
>=20
> [=C2=B9] dash suggest they're not in django namespace, otherwise bina=
ry
>     package name would be python3-django.foo
>     (or python3-django.ext.foo, like in flask?)
> [=C2=B2] sys.path.append('/usr/lib/python3/django-packages/') in
>     django/__init__.py if django import always prepends other imports=

>     (python3-django- namespace would be tolerable then, I guess)

Some, but not all of them, are shipped as django_foo, so for those, I t=
hink=20
python*-django-foo is actually correct. =20

>From a django perspective, it makes a difference.  As an example, djang=
o-
python-hstore (which I just packaged with python*-django-hstore binarie=
s) is=20
django_hstore.  When added to Django INSTALLED_APPS, it's added as=20
django_hstore.  The django. namespace is for things shipped with Django=
, not=20
third-party packages.

Asking upstreams to rename to use django_ where they don't will complic=
ate=20
things for upgrades, so I don't think that's a great idea.

I'm not one of the python-django uploaders, so we'd need their feedback=
 on=20
[2].  I think something like that is a reasonable compromise if they ar=
e=20
willing to support it.

Thanks,

Scott K