On 10/01/2013 11:23 PM, Michael Basnight wrote: > > On Oct 1, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Nicholas Chase wrote: > >> >> >> On 10/1/2013 10:53 AM, Michael Basnight wrote: >> >>> Well this sucks. Im not sure im a fan of renaming it because of the >>> previous existence of a package. Renaming is not fun. Ill let the more >>> experienced openstack peoples help decide on this... >> >> Certainly it's not fun, but wouldn't it be easier to do it NOW, rather than >> later? > > Hah, well, it begs the question, why are we _not_ namespacing all > openstack packages. If you look @ the rpms, they are all namespaced [1]. > IMHO, i wouldnt mind seeing openstack-blah packages. And let me reiterate >, im not sure changing our name _again_ is the way to go because of a > conflicting debian package. This wont be a problem for the rpms, because > they are namespaced (openstack-trove). > > [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/openstack-nova
Because the problem is *not* only within the Debian package naming. They are tight together. The problem is that dh_python2 uses (IMO nicely) the Python namespace to generate dependencies automatically. If we start pre-fixing package names, then all sorts of tricks will have to be added, like debian/pydist_override files and so on, so that we get the correct python-openstack-NAME package and not python-NAME. So if you want to prefix things, that's a very good idea, but then the Python namespace has to also include this prefix (for example, we would have python-openstack-troveclient as package name, and openstack-troveclient in the Python namespace). Thomas Goirand (zigo) _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev