"pulpproj" has grown on me. For a while I was fond of something like "pulp_app", thinking as both a django app and celery app. Then we'd have "pulp_streamer", "pulp_common", and "pulp_cli" all as top-level namespaces. I still think this would be a fine approach, but I lean in favor of keeping our current pattern and just replacing "pulp" with "pulpproj".
Michael On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbout...@redhat.com> wrote: > Pulp3 can't use the 'pulp' Python namespace like we did on Pulp2 because > it's already taken on PyPI and we don't want to conflict. We need to decide > on some new Python package names. > > I've updated a previous write-up[0] with options we have in this area. It > talks about package name options for pip installing purposes, and it > discusses how we will lay out the packages within site-packages. > > I prefer the prefix of 'pulpproj' with "idea 2". I also prefer all > packages will install under a top level dir. So that would cause platform > to pip install with: > > pip install pulpproj > pip install pulpproj_cli > pip install pulpproj_streamer > > All of ^ packages would be laid out on the filesystem as: > > /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pulpproj/ > ├── cli > ├── common > ├── platform > └── streamer > > What are your thoughts and ideas? What do you prefer? Also should this > become a PUP? > > [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444#note-7 > > -Brian > > _______________________________________________ > Pulp-dev mailing list > Pulp-dev@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev > > -- Michael Hrivnak Principal Software Engineer, RHCE Red Hat
_______________________________________________ Pulp-dev mailing list Pulp-dev@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev