On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 11:48:55AM +0100, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:48 AM, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 7 December 2016 at 09:39, Jakub Jedelsky <jakub.jedelsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hi there,
> >>
> >> I'm maintainer of vertica-python package and want to add support for
> >> python3, but I'm a little bit lost in naming.
> >>
> >> I named package as a upstream 'vertica-python', because (if I remember
> >> correctly) naming guidelines told, that if upstream has 'python' in
> >> the name it should stay there (can't found the source now). But how
> >> should I name python3 package? Should it be 'python3-vertica-python'
> >> od 'vertica-python3'?
> >>
> >> Or should I rename package to python{3,2}-vertica and obsolete
> >> vertica-python?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Well the name in setup.py is vertica-python and it installs as
> > vertica_python and the pip install is that as well.
> >
> > So according to the guidelines I'd expect it to by
> > python2-vertica-python and python3-vertica-python even if it sounds a
> > little awkward, best way to handle anything that might end up
> > depending on it etc
> IMO this is worst thing. I think having pythonX-vertica is better.
I just sniffed around repos and found just one package with a weird
name - it's python3-python-etcd. On the other hand I found a few, which
are in style <name>-python3, e.g. abrt-python3, libvirt-python3. So it
looks, that this naming should be quite good.
- jj
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
