FWIW, I think the current scheme works best. I manage a bunch of packages that have python wrappers; the package then pretty much _has_ to follow the current scheme, eg.
Source package: silo Bin packages: libsilo0 libsilo-dev python-silo python3-silo (coming). A policy on renaming the source package isn't likely to change silo, etc. and so a greater inconsistency follows. regards Alastair On 10/07/2013 07:58, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 07/08/2013 10:10 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> There is no policy on this either way, so there's no "mistake". > Well, the mistake is precisely to have no rule, IMO. > > On 07/08/2013 11:37 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> Hopefully, it will become more and more common to have at least >> python-X and python3-X. With that in mind, many of our source >> packages that are producing a single binary package today should >> hopefully be producing two or more binary packages tomorrow. > Never the less, I think we should collectively decide what to do, rather > than continuing the mess, with everyone having its own rule. > > Thomas > > -- Alastair McKinstry , <alast...@sceal.ie> , <mckins...@debian.org> http://blog.sceal.ie Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist - Kenneth Boulter, Economist. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51dd0912.30...@sceal.ie