On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> 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