Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #13027 > unrolled thread

Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix? Nilesh Patra <npatra974@gmail.com> - 2020-11-26 13:40 +0100
    Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-"  prefix? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2020-11-26 18:00 +0100
    Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-"  prefix? Steffen Möller <steffen_moeller@gmx.de> - 2020-11-26 22:40 +0100
      Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-"  prefix? Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2020-11-27 13:20 +0100
        Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-"  prefix? Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> - 2020-11-27 14:20 +0100

#13027 — Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi,

Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries:

* python3-babel
* python-babel-doc
* python-babel-localedata

of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the
documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files used
by python3-babel.

Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They do
not contain any actual code though

BTW this also has a RC bug, and I pushed the fix to salsa. If it needs a
renaming, it'd be great if someone could upload it to NEW.

If not, I'll do a source-only-upload.
Please let me know what you think of this.

Kind regards
Nilesh

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13028 — Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?

On 11/26/20 1:16 PM, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries:
> 
> * python3-babel
> * python-babel-doc
> * python-babel-localedata
> 
> of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the
> documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files
> used by python3-babel.
> 
> Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They do
> not contain any actual code though
> 
> BTW this also has a RC bug, and I pushed the fix to salsa. If it needs a
> renaming, it'd be great if someone could upload it to NEW.
> 
> If not, I'll do a source-only-upload.
> Please let me know what you think of this.
> 
> Kind regards
> Nilesh

Hi,

It used to be that we had a python-babel that also needed the data in
python-babel-localedata, which was shared by both the Python 2 and 3
packages. Now, we don't have it anymore. So probably, what could be
done, is move all the files in python3-babel, and get rid of
python-babel-localedata completely.

python-babel-doc is still the correct package name for the doc (unless
the amount of doc is small and could be integrated in python3-babel as
well).

If that's the way to go, then python3-babel needs a Breaks+Replaces:
python-babel-localedata.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13029 — Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?

Hi Nilesh,

On 26.11.20 13:16, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries:
>
> * python3-babel
> * python-babel-doc
> * python-babel-localedata
>
> of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the
> documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files
> used by python3-babel.
>
> Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They
> do not contain any actual code though
>
> BTW this also has a RC bug, and I pushed the fix to salsa. If it needs
> a renaming, it'd be great if someone could upload it to NEW.
>
> If not, I'll do a source-only-upload.
> Please let me know what you think of this.

I propose to have the "3" only for packages that depend on python3. The
source package name, documentation and data package names should not be
versioned.

Best,

Steffen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13030 — Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?

On Thu, 26 Nov 2020 at 22:33:19 +0100, Steffen Möller wrote:
> On 26.11.20 13:16, Nilesh Patra wrote:
> > Currently src:python-babel provides 3 binaries:
> >
> > * python3-babel
> > * python-babel-doc
> > * python-babel-localedata
> >
> > of which python3-babel is the main binary, -babel-doc is for the
> > documentation and -babel-localedata is for storing locale data files
> > used by python3-babel.
> >
> > Should this be renamed to a "python3-" prefix for both binaries? They
> > do not contain any actual code though
>
> I propose to have the "3" only for packages that depend on python3. The
> source package name, documentation and data package names should not be
> versioned.

For the documentation,
https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/module_packages.html
says python-babel-doc is correct (I wrote this wording, but the
python3-defaults maintainers merged it and I think there's consensus
that it's right):

    If the documentation for a module foo provided in python3-foo is
    large enough that a separate binary package for documentation is
    desired, then the documentation package should preferably be named
    python-foo-doc (and in particular, not python3-foo-doc).

For the locale data, the policy doesn't say either way (Python libraries
with separate version-independent data are somewhat rare), but I agree that
python- is likely to be the most appropriate choice here too.

A good way to decide this is to think about what we would do if we had a
Python 4 that is incompatible with Python 3 (which I assume will happen
eventually, although hopefully not for a few years). If these packages
would be shared between python3-babel and python4-babel, then they should
be named with an unversioned python- prefix. That's the reasoning for why
the documentation gets a python- prefix.

The unversioned python- namespace is shared between "Python 2 specifically"
and "not specific to a Python version" for historical reasons: Python 1.x
and 2.x were sufficiently compatible that there was no need to distinguish
between python1-foo and python2-foo.

    smcv

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13031 — Re: Should Binaries provided by python-babel have a "python3-" prefix?

On 11/27/20 1:13 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> A good way to decide this is to think about what we would do if we had a
> Python 4 that is incompatible with Python 3 (which I assume will happen
> eventually, although hopefully not for a few years).

It is very likely that you're wrongly guessing. Numerous times, the
Python upstream people wrote that the py2 to py3 transition was a bad
idea, and they will not do the same kind of mistake again, and that
there probably wont be a Python 4 anytime.

Which is why I thought merging the content of python3-babel and
python3-babel-localedata would be a good idea.

Cheers,

Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web