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-" prefix
for
>>>> _all_
>>>> Python 3 module packages and subpackages, even if this leads to
>>>> inconsistencies with their counterparts in the python 2 stack. It would
>>>> make the "threeness" of the packages stand out more.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>
> for the
>
> python-<package> -> python3-<package>
> py<package> -> python3-py<package> (I think we should keep the py to
> 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/*'
>
> Tim
>
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
entirely below:
/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages
/usr/share/doc/NAME-VERSION
I suspect that most of the packages within these lists fall into this
category:
"Packages starting with 'python-':"
"Packages starting with 'Py' or 'py' (but not
'python-')"
"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 quick look,
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 and
"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.:
python3-trac-privateticketsplugin
python3-TurboGears
python3-TurboGears2
python3-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.
Does the "purely a module" vs "is something uservisible" vs "is a
stack"
distinction sound sane?
Dave