On Friday 25 July 2003 08:31, Michael Scherer wrote: > Some of them are named > foo-python, and the others are named python-bar. > > example adns-python, libxslt-python > vs python-xoltar, python-fam
There are two important distinctions here that are being missed. First, adns-python and libxslt-python are python interfaces to the standalone packages adns and libxslt; python-xoltar is a standalone set of extensions to the python standard libraries (there is no "xoltar" package). Second, adns-python and libxslt-python come from the same tarball (or another tarball on the same project site) as adns and libxslt; python-xoltar is a project on its own. In other words, this is just like the difference between gimp-perl (the perl interface to gimp, distributed with gimp) and python-Inline (an extension to the perl standard libraries, distributed as Inline in CPAN). The rule of thumb that perl packages seem to follow is: If the package's primary source is CPAN, the package is perl-Foo-Bar, where Foo::Bar is the CPAN name; if the primary source is the foo distribution,the package is foo-perl. Do we want to change this rule to always use the perl-Foo-Bar style of naming? Or is it better to just codify the existing de facto rule, and extend it to python (which would mean the vast majority of existing perl and python packages are already named correctly)? Note that python doesn't have a real equivalent to CPAN (for example, there's no Starship entry for xoltar, or cRat, or perlmodule). This also means that it's harder to figure out a "canonical name" for a package. If the Xoltar website has a tarball called xoltar which includes no files named xoltar, is the resulting package python-Xoltar or python-xoltar? If the CRat website has a tarball called cRat which builds a module called crat.so, is the package python-CRat, python-cRat, or python-crat? (For the modules I've packaged, I've used the name of the tarball.)
