On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:09:48AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-12-07 at 16:26 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> > Generally it is bad idea to differ from the name platform package
> > manager uses.
>
> The packages *must* by policy Provide python2-vertica-python and
> python3-vertica-python respectively, but they don't absolutely have to
> be named that way. The guidelines - by my reading - absolutely require
> that the source package name start with 'python-' and the binary
> package names start with 'python2-' and 'python3-' , but they leave a
> bit of flexibility for what comes after the -. They only say:
>
> "The package name should reflect the upstream name of the Python
> module, and should generally take into account the name of the module
> used when importing it in Python scripts."
>
> 'reflect the upstream name' is not as strict as 'be identical to the
> upstream name'. Dropping the repetition of 'python' seems to fit within
> the guidelines.
>
> However, 'vertica-python' and 'vertica-python3' are right out, they are
> entirely against the guidelines and those names should not be used. If
> this package is under review, the reviewer must reject those names.
Ok, that makes sense to me. 'vertica-python' already exist for a few
years - as I mentioned earlier today, it somehow pass guidelines
earlier.
So I'll try to switch it to 'python{2,3}-vertica-python' to be safe
(as Vit mentioned) and to respect guidelines at all.
Thanks.
- jj
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
