Path: csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!news.servidellagleba.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Sandro Tosi Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: on the lack of a `python-` prefix for source packages Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2022 03:50:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Mon Dec 12 02:44:36 2022 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.75 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5.5 X-Gm-Message-State: ANoB5pmhinBNEKVc6ckNqx48ubYYJesRE68u27FnbZNnINIhvqmR+wic URZ1gRE2tn+gT8J1o+Yd7qQHTd4tDcSuXP1maOS24ye7rxM5nw== X-Google-SMTP-Source: AA0mqf7nnlSbMhkofZPBKKyPo402/Xo+WDZDyT3L3hO0jhkRY11ipioqVXcLZgxzKBkzx33wMDn5q94R58jwh5zg+bY= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:bfc7:0:b0:3bd:e0b8:e350 with SMTP id p190-20020a1fbfc7000000b003bde0b8e350mr6191371vkf.25.1670813054187; Sun, 11 Dec 2022 18:44:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/20582 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/CAB4XWXw5R+Ce0DAaAGOALm1tFHBU2RgkqLyEopBv86mQJTjyiQ@mail.gmail.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 32 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:43:48 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <7B430D0B-5BEF-46E2-B1B1-75BC043B20A0@kitterman.com> <9755f395-9e26-2a43-c9bc-e3c426520632@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:14716 > >> My proposal as stated at the top is to start from now on to prepend > >> `python` to all NEW source packages in DPT, with the option to rename > >> existing packages at a later date. > >> > >> What are other team members' opinions on this? > > > > For packages that on contain a python module/extension, I think it's not horrible, but I don't see why it's better to diverge from upstream naming. > > I tend to agree with Sandro on for this use case. True, i was mostly referring to modules, as that's the most numerous type of packages we have > > For packages that contain or are primarily applications, I don't think it's a good idea. > > Ditto on that one, I don't feel having "python-supysonic" would be a > good naming scheme... please note that would be just for source packages, the user-facing ones can still be `supysonic` as that's what you expect to install On Sun, Dec 11, 2022 at 8:53 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > What problem are you trying to solve? no problem specifically, i just feel that having a consistent scheme would benefit Debian and then team. -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi