On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:45:45AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi everybody, > > > > I have a question about the name of a new package and would like > > everyone's opinion on this issue, because in our wiki > > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PythonNamingDependingOnImplementation) > > practically forces whatever is written in Python to have name: > > python-% {name}, but I believe this is very bad for our users, if the > > package is a tool, not a python module the user would like to use this > > package: > > Several notes aboout this: * This proposed feature page hasn't yet been completed so it carries no official weight as of yet. You should instead read the NamingGuidelines and Python guidelines pages as bkabrda points out. (All current Packaging Guidelines live under the /wiki/Packaging: namespace. Things outside of that are not official standards for packages at this time). * If you're building a package that has both a python2 and a python3 implementation then that's likely a sign that the usage as a python library is more important than you think. It's probably wise to use the python-* naming convention then. > > # Yum install python-% {name} > > $ ./python-% {Name}-u xxx-p xxx-f file1.txt file2.txt > > > > This is not the real purpose of the package, which aims to be a > > tool for use by our users. > > There are also packages in Fedora are tools that are written in > > Python and is not named python-% {name}, eg fpaste > > (https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fpaste/sources/spec). > > I created this ticket and transmit it to everyone to view and opine: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980318 > > > > Hi, > there is a note in the naming guidelines regarding this [1]: > > If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact. > > Therefore if you don't consider your package to be an addon (in this case, addon would be a Python library), but an "application", you should name it without the "python-" prefix. > The way you chose to name your application seems perfectly fine to me. > tldr; : +1 The longer version: Naming of packages of applications written in python often have a bit of maintainer discretion. Oftentimes a package will contain both a public module (files exist in %python_sitelib or %python_sitearch) and a program (something in /usr/bin that is run.) We tell maintainers to evaluate this according to whether the package is primarily of use as a module (library of python code) or as an application that end user's invoke. Thus we have the "yum" package and "python-docutils" packages where the maintainers have evaluated and chosen what they think is the best fit for their particular packages. The python-* naming convention can also be used in cases where the name of the python package might otherwise conflict with another package. For instance, python-pip and perl-pip even though user's are much more likely to be using /usr/bin/pip than importing the pip module. Finally, it isn't currently a requirement of the naming guidelines but it might be a good idea to use a Virtual Provide or split off a subpackage where a package has a use case for both python modules and as an application. That way end users get what they expect when they yum install python-gists or yum install gists. (and note -- I can't think of any packages that use a subpackage for this atm so that's likely overkill for most things). -Toshio
Attachment:
pgpvx7qWAa2Md.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
