On Sunday 27 July 2003 23:04, Andi Payn wrote: > 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).
Well, even if this is named python-adns, i guess that most people can deduce that it is related to libadns. The source of a package should not impact his name. > 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). No, because the gimp-perl package is something that enhance gimp. adns-python enhance python, not libadns. I do not see the need to make a distinction between a module which is an interface, and a module written in pure python, not related to a C library. For a user point of view, there is no différences. So, if a package is a extension to a program, in order to add scripting capabilities in some language, i guess that program-language should be used. If not, if this is a module, language-module make more sense. > 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)? Well, at least, we should write the rule, whatever ti will turn to be. > 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.) What about to use the name of the import ? If the name is Xoltar, the problem of how we should name it is different from the problem of the position of 'python' in the name. I think that capitalized name of package are unpleasant to read, and, most people will use lowercase when searching so except for the pleasure of having the same name, this is , IMHO, useless. -- Michaël Scherer
