Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2014-06-13 03:04:07 -0700: > On 06/13/2014 06:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > Hi Thomas, > > > > I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t > > care” from before). > > > > I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving > > at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it > > "python-bash8"? > > Yes, this is what will happen. > > > Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined) > > should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command” > > could be separate from the packaging / project name. > > If upstream chooses /usr/bin/bash8, I'll have to follow. I don't want to > carry patches which I'd have to maintain. > > > Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure > > bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that > > really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming? > > Renaming python-bash8 into something else is not possible, because the > Debian standard is to use, as Debian name, what is used for the import. > So if we have "import xyz", then the package will be python-xyz. >
For python _libraries_ yes. But for a utility which happens to import that library, naming the package after what upstream calls it is a de facto standard. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev