Hans de Goede wrote:
> I've recently packaged paragui, and this comes with python bindings
> included, I've used "%package python" for these bindings resulting
> in paragui-python as name, this seems natural, but if the python
> bindings were a stand alone package, it would violate the package
> naming guidelines. In the stand alone case the name must be
> "python-paragui", which can be realized in this case too, by using:
> "%package -n python-%{name}" .
>
> So which one is best in the bindings included in the main lib case?
I had to choose one or the other when packaging the python bindings
from libgpod. In looking at other packages it seems that there are
some of both - python prefixes and python suffixes - for packages with
the bindings included in the lib.
I went with python as the prefix. This way if the bindings ever get
split off into their own package the name won't have to change. It's
also consistent with other python modules that are packaged separately
from any libraries they provide an interface to. I figured there
wasn't much reason why a user should care whether the bindings came
from the lib or not.
(Another minor consideration was that several other distros already
used python-gpod and this made it simpler for someone who found a
howto for another distro to apply it to Fedora.)
Of course, arguments can easily be made the other way as well and
they're just as valid. It's largely a preference, it seems to me. If
there is a reasonable consensus on which is preferred, I'd be happy to
follow it.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
======================================================================
Years ago fairy tales all began with "Once upon a time...", now we
know they all begin with, "If I am elected..."
-- Carolyn Warner
Attachment:
pgpvTJk30tpxU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
