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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8695 > unrolled thread

Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio

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

Contents

  Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio Luke Yeager <luke.yeager@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 01:00 +0200
    Re: Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-08-03 01:30 +0200
      Re: Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio Simon McVittie <smcv@debian.org> - 2016-08-03 02:20 +0200
    Re: Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 02:30 +0200
      Re: Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio Luke Yeager <luke.yeager@gmail.com> - 2016-08-03 03:20 +0200

#8695 — Package name for github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio

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

I'd like to make a debian package for this repo:
https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio

The policy manual says the package name should be "python-socketio" since I
want to create a python2 package that provides the "socketio" module.

But that name is already taken by this project:
https://github.com/abourget/gevent-socketio

What is the preferred way to deal with these issues? Calling the package
"python-socketio2"? Using the same package name with an epoch in the
version string seems like clearly the wrong approach.

Thanks for the advice,
Luke

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8696

Luke Yeager <luke.yeager@gmail.com> writes:

> The policy manual says the package name should be "python-socketio"
> since I want to create a python2 package that provides the "socketio"
> module.
>
> But that name is already taken by this project:
> https://github.com/abourget/gevent-socketio

Yes, this is a problem with the current Debian Python policy: it assumes
distribution authors will not collide on package names.

I don't have an answer, though I will point out that whatever the
solution is, it will be incompatible with the current Debian Python
policy for at least one of those packages.

We need to discuss the problem and find a general solution that accepts
the reality that upstream authors sometimes don't check whether the
Python package name is already taken.

-- 
 \        “I was once walking through the forest alone and a tree fell |
  `\       right in front of me, and I didn't hear it.” —Steven Wright |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney

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

#8697

On Wed, 03 Aug 2016 at 09:12:22 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> Yes, this is a problem with the current Debian Python policy: it assumes
> distribution authors will not collide on package names.
> 
> I don't have an answer, though I will point out that whatever the
> solution is, it will be incompatible with the current Debian Python
> policy for at least one of those packages.

Debian cannot provide more than one Python module named socketio, have them
co-installable, and make them both work in Python via "import socketio"
without taking some sort of special steps to choose one. It's exactly the
same problem as having two C libraries both trying to be named libfoo.so.0.

The policy has been useful here, because you have found that there is
a problem now, not later.

(I don't have a general solution to the problem of upstreams naming things
as generically as this either.)

    S

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

#8698

On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Luke Yeager <luke.yeager@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to make a debian package for this repo:
> https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio

It is only a year old, so maybe they would be open to the idea they
should pick a more unique name now.

https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio/commit/aa2e146a60aa9b2257ce748690104c796a09b551

Or if they really want to use "socketio", they should provide
near-100% compatibility with the "socketio" that has existed for many
years, breaking very cleanly where the implementation details are
different.  Which could actually be a good thing, as the main
"socketio" author isn't currently maintaining their package:

https://github.com/abourget/gevent-socketio/commit/1c84627980c0b77f8f9005fdbcc916ca33d0e4d1

--
John Vandenberg

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

#8699

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

FYI I did a little searching and realized this has been discussed before.
Sorry - I'm new to these old-style mailing lists.
https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2016/03/msg00074.html

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 5:28 PM, John Mark Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Luke Yeager <luke.yeager@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd like to make a debian package for this repo:
> > https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio
>
> It is only a year old, so maybe they would be open to the idea they
> should pick a more unique name now.
>
>
> https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio/commit/aa2e146a60aa9b2257ce748690104c796a09b551
>
> Or if they really want to use "socketio", they should provide
> near-100% compatibility with the "socketio" that has existed for many
> years, breaking very cleanly where the implementation details are
> different.  Which could actually be a good thing, as the main
> "socketio" author isn't currently maintaining their package:
>
>
> https://github.com/abourget/gevent-socketio/commit/1c84627980c0b77f8f9005fdbcc916ca33d0e4d1
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web