On Sat, Mar 31, 2007 at 11:33:32AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 19:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 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?
> >
> The packaging committee talked about this in the last three months but I
> don't recall if we settled on a policy.
>
> I believe the general consensus was that ${language}-${pkg} was better
> but as I said, I don't remember if we formalized it as policy.
I think we all wished for python(foo) virtual provides, but Santa
never delivered them :)
FWIW we have already put in stone the following: "If the upstream
source has "py" (or "Py") in its name, you can use that name for the
package. So, for example, pygtk is acceptable."
Maybe for F8 we should have rpm generate python(foo) and have
dependencies built on that. Python packages could then be called
whatever is better suited, as from the packgain POV we'd be using the
python(foo) stuff.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp6TPfMSFg8A.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
