On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:43:16 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote: > >> > Trial-and-error guessing of package names isn't practical. Searching >> > manually in possibly alphabetically sorted lists of thousands of packages >> > isn't practical either. >> >> "Isn't practical" is a perfect reason to improve it with a new python >> package naming proposal. > > Check out the other replies. It would be much more of a reason to be as > close as possible to upstream names, so documentation on the web would > work, too, and users would get some result without guessing package names. > Although I think running package searches is superior. > > http://www.pygtk.org/ > | > | PyGTK for Linux > | > | PyGTK is included in most Linux distributions (including Debian, Fedora, > | Ubuntu, Opensuse, Gentoo, Mandrake, Redhat, SUSE...); > > Yet "yum install PyGTK" would not work. Introducing lots of prefixes or > interpreter version identifiers is unlikely to end up with a clean/clear > solution. %python_provides PyGTK $interpreter would help here, which provides the PyGTK package from the correct $interpreter-pygtk package. This way, you know for sure, where to search for in bugzilla, such as python2-pygtk (or python2-PyGTK) and the yum install command would work as expected from the web. I do consider this a "clean solution". Greetings, Tom -- packaging mailing list packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
