Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623425 --- Comment #19 from Chen Lei <supercyper1@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-17 02:17:33 EDT --- Hi all(esp. Rex, Kalev, Oget, Toshio), It seems our naming policy for python modules is ambiguous and many times I found it's hard to find consistency name for them. I'll suggest to modify Fedora naming guideline slightly refer to the debian python-policy which seems more clear than ours. See http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html Public modules used by other packages must have their binary package name prefixed with python-. It is recommended to use this prefix for all packages with public modules as they may be used by other packages in the future. Python 3 modules must be in a separate binary package prefixed with python3- to preserve run time separation between python and python3. The binary package for module foo should preferably be named python-foo, if the module name allows, but this is not required if the binary package ships multiple modules. In the latter case the maintainer chooses the name of the module which represents the package the most. Such a package should support the current Debian Python version, and more if possible (there are several tools to help implement this, see Packaging Tools, Appendix B). For example, if Python 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 are supported, the Python statement import foo -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review