> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:05:09PM +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2019/09/23 16:17, Kurt Mosiejczuk wrote:
> > > Did we really want to name it py-pysha3? I figure py-sha3 is what we would
> > > usually do in that case. (See pytest -> py-test, pydot -> py-dot, others)
>
> > We have it both ways, personally I prefer it this way (portgen does
> > this also) but I don't mind much either way.
I did notice we weren't necessarily always consistent with the naming.
I chose this way for a couple of reasons. (I am not saying this is the
right way).
1/ Be consistent with other platform and faciliate the search. The
module name is 'pydot'. People wondering if it's available in ports
will search for 'pydot'.
You will not find it, not with pkg_info -Q, not with make search
key=pydot, not on openports.se (Package Name). (But you will find
'pygal' for example). Potentially you would have noticed some py-* so
will search for py-pydot, or py-pygal. But will again find only the second
one.
2/ Prevent collision. To come back to this pysha3 ports, a 'sha3' [1]
module does exist. What would be his package name? py-sha3.
Would be a problem if we name 'pysha3' this way.
I understand this could feel awkward for the modules py-py*
But long story short, PKGNAME = py-${DISTNAME} makes more sense to me than
PKGNAME= ${DISTNAME:S/py/py-/}.
But this is just my opinion. If there's another approach I would be
happy to stick with it in the future and stay consistent.
[1] https://pypi.org/project/sha3/
--
clematis (0x7e96fd2400fe7b59)
