On 10/30/2009 05:11 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 10:28 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
> On 10/30/2009 09:57 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>> On 10/30/2009 01:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:42 -0400, John Dennis wrote:
>>>> On 10/29/2009 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>>> I rather like the idea of standardizing on a "python3-"
>>>>> Python 3 module packages and subpackages, even if this leads to
>>>>> inconsistencies with their counterparts in the python 2 stack. It
>>>>> make the "threeness" of the packages stand out more.
>> for the
>> python-<package> -> python3-<package>
>> py<package> -> python3-py<package> (I think we should keep the
>> make it easier to locate stuff pygpgme)
>> <package>-python -> python3-<package>
>> Seem good to me.
>> But there is a lot of packages installing stuff into
>> /usr/lib/pythonX-Y/site-packages there don't fit 3 cases.
>> Ex. yum
>> It is an application, but also an python API used by other packages, how
>> do we handle there cases.
>> I have attacted the the sorted output from
>> repoquery -f '/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/*'
> I have added a ordered file categorizing the packages in
Very nice, thanks!
In my email I said "Python 3 module packages and subpackages", and I'm
not being very precise about this.
Can a distinction can be drawn between an rpm that "merely" packages a
python module? I think that many of our rpms have payloads that are
I suspect that most of the packages within these lists fall into this
"Packages starting with 'python-':"
"Packages starting with 'Py' or 'py' (but not
"Packages ending with '-python':" (most of these seem to be
subpackages from a mostly non-python build)
Contrast this with the "None of the above:" category. At a
most of the packages in this list appear to be using python as an
implementation detail, in order to get some user-facing job done. For
these, I feel we'd port them one-by-one, and the name need not change.
A complication/exception in this last category is for plugin systems
"stacks". For example, yum and its various plugins/extensions don't
mention python in their name, but they're written in python 2.
Similarly, Django and the various django-foo packages implement the
Django web development framework, which happens to be written in python
2 (hopefully will eventually have python 3 support), and "trac-foo". My
gut feeling for both of these cases is that we'd want python 2 and 3
versions for a while, so perhaps a python3- prefix is ok. That would
give us e.g.:
The plan for yum is to stay with python 2.x until RHEL6 is branched and
then switch to python 3.x for the
yum head branch. (not writen in stone yet )
I don't think we will ever have both a python 2.x and 3.x version in the
same distro, so it will fall into the previous
category and can keep the name yum.
I noticed "wxPython" in the "none of the above"
naming bucket. This one
definitely feels like a support module, rather than a thing to be used
in its own right (python bindings to the wxWidgets library).
- wxPython3 ?
- python3-wx ?
etc not sure; maybe depends on upstream.
I think i should be python3-wxPython, because people seaching for
wxPython will find both and can make the right choice.
Does the "purely a module" vs "is something
uservisible" vs "is a stack"
distinction sound sane?