Re: Python package naming guidelines
Timothy Selivanow wrote:
I feel this is more nit-picking, but I'm currently working on
packaging
the following items (python/zope names) and need some direction:
zc.buildout
zope.proxy
ZConfig
zdaemon
zope.testing
ZODB3
I haven't exactly liked the current naming conventions, as they leave
way too much variation while still being "acceptable". E.g., a package
I have already done, pysvn, could have been named "python-pysvn" or
"pysvn". If it had been used as "import svn", I would have no
problems
calling it "python-svn", as that would denote that it is a python
package having something to do with SVN (since SVN is already a
well-known entity), but upstream calls itself "pysvn" while also using
that as the python package name, so calling it "python-pysvn" seemed
redundant. However, with the above, there seems to be more ambiguity.
Adding to my naming troubles, there is already a package for
zope.interface, which is a dependency of ZODB3, and it's name is
python-zope-interface. The problem I am having is that it seems to me
that if an entity is fairly standalone, i.e. there is no ambiguity
whether or not it is a python (or any other language)
library/application, that the "python" prefix would be dropped. We
don't currently call TurboGears, "python-TurboGears" (yet there are
other turbo-related libs that follow the python prefix scheme, e.g.
python-turbokid and python-turbocheeta).
TurboGears was built before the Guideline.
(Django, OTOH, was built in violation of the guidelines and I didn't get
to the review bug in time to get it changed)
Really, I'm asking the Python consuming portion of the Fedora
Community
what they would rather see. I can also take this up on the packaging
list, but thought I'd ask here first because potentially it's the people
on this list that would be consuming these packages.
Would it be:
python-zc-buildout
python-zope-proxy
python-ZConfig
python-zdaemon
python-zope-testing
python-ZODB3
python-zope (thrown in to add contrast, and I'm still working on
packaging it...)
Or the above without the prefix?
It seems to me that there should be a more firm guideline that takes
into account python applications, python only frameworks/libs, and
python lib ports (these seem to be the bulk of how a name would be
determined).
An application doesn't need to be prefixed with python-.
The question is, of course, if something like gourmet which has a
module... but that module really just exists to be imported by the
program should be gourmet or python-gourmet. I wouldn't stop someone
from going either way with this.
Other than that, bit... python libs and python lib ports should both be
prefixed with python-. A python framework should be prefixed with
python- as well but the definition of framework is a bit ambiguous: zope
can run standalone and therefore could be considered an application
while TurboGears cannot run until someone creates an application that
imports it, therefore it should definitely have been named
python-turbogears.
So in your list, you need to decide if it's an application, an
application which happens to have a module to support its functionality,
or if it's a module that people are expected to use in their programs.
If the latter, you are most likely going to want a python- prefix....
although you might want to have a subpackage for the application in
corner cases where it's equally likely that someone would import a
certain module and that someone else would run the program.
-Toshio
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)