On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> - (This is not really related to the switch, but more of a general remark) In [4],
it says that "python 3 version of the executable gains a python3- prefix". This
is IMO bad, since upstream projects tend to name the versioned binaries "foo-3.4,
foo-3" or "foo3.4, foo3". We should accept one of these - I'm not
really certain which one of them. I tried to discuss this several times on distutils-sig
mailing list, but without reaching a consensus. Either way, prefixing with python3-
doesn't make sense to me, because it's not similar to any upstream way and you
don't find the binaries under their names using tab completion (e.g. foo<tab>
doesn't tell you about python3-foo).
Agreed.
CPython & pip use the "foo3.4, foo3" convention, so that seems enough of a
reason to use that convention by default. We may want a "unless upstream does it
differently" caveat though.
It doesn't really matter right now but long term I think python packaging
should just natively support commands like this. Either just as a matter of fact, opt in,
or by allowing templated command names. Either way I think the upstream tooling should and
likely will follow python's lead for how these are written.