[Scott Kitterman, 2016-11-28] > I've recently done some Django related packaging for the first time and > noticed that we have organically (as far as I can tell) grown a slightly > different naming convention for such packages. Instead of python*-foo, we > use > python*-django-foo. > > I think this is a reasonable approach and followed it in the new packages > I've > recently done. > > I decided to check and see how common the approach is. Here's what I found > in > Sid: > > Start with django: 7 > Start w/django, not transitional: 2 > Start with django3: 0 > > Start with python-django (excluding -doc): 136 > Start with python3-django: 84 > > I think it would make sense to add this to the Python policy so how we're > doing it is documented. I am attaching a proposed diff. I made it a should > because there are two non-DPMT packages that don't follow this rule and I > think it's late in the cycle to be adding to must policy requirements. > > Please let me know what you think. I'm open to suggestions on wording. I'd > like to get this done in the next week and do a python-defaults upload with > this and a few minor (non-policy) changes that are pending.
-1 from me If Django packages have no use outside Django¹, they should be moved out² of public dist-packages IMO. If they are useful, "-django" part is misleading. [¹] dash suggest they're not in django namespace, otherwise binary package name would be python3-django.foo (or python3-django.ext.foo, like in flask?) [²] sys.path.append('/usr/lib/python3/django-packages/') in django/__init__.py if django import always prepends other imports (python3-django- namespace would be tolerable then, I guess) -- Piotr Ożarowski Debian GNU/Linux Developer www.ozarowski.pl www.griffith.cc www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645