olivier.sal...@codeless.fr wrote: > > On 08/05/2014 12:04 AM, Vincent Cheng wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 2:17 PM, Antonio Valentino >> <antonio.valent...@tiscali.it> wrote: >>> Hi list, >>> I read in [1] and [2] that binary packages with public modules should >>> have the python- (or python3-) prefix in the name. >>> I'm wondering if the same naming rules should be used for source packages. >>> >>> I'm preparing some new packages so I would like to be sure I'm using the >>> correct naming before the first upload. >>> >> AFAIK, no, there aren't any hard and fast rules regarding source >> package names. In fact, I don't think there are any rules at all; just >> don't pick a source package name that's already taken, and pick one >> that is relevant to your package (if you take a look at existing DPMT >> packages [1], most of them either use their module name, or prefix it >> with python-). > We have discussed some times about this in different groups (DebianMed > Debian Java ....). > I think that usual way is to use for source package the name of the > upstream software (if not already taken of course and matching general > name rules). > > Olivier >> Regards, >> Vincent
I think it is a good practice to make the source package name the same as the binary package name as long is there isn't a good reason to do otherwise. So with any source package that produces one binary package, those names should match. That keeps the Debian namespace smaller and more easy to understand. If a source package produces more than one binary package, then I think it makes the most sense to name the source package using the upstream name, barring name conflicts, too general a name, etc. .hc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53e139e0.7060...@at.or.at
