----- Original Message ----- > On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Nick Coghlan < ncogh...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > - (This is not really related to the switch, but more of a general > > > remark) > > > In [4], it says that "python 3 version of the executable gains a python3- > > > prefix". This is IMO bad, since upstream projects tend to name the > > > versioned binaries "foo-3.4, foo-3" or "foo3.4, foo3". We should accept > > > one of these - I'm not really certain which one of them. I tried to > > > discuss this several times on distutils-sig mailing list, but without > > > reaching a consensus. Either way, prefixing with python3- doesn't make > > > sense to me, because it's not similar to any upstream way and you don't > > > find the binaries under their names using tab completion (e.g. foo<tab> > > > doesn't tell you about python3-foo). > > > Agreed. > > > CPython & pip use the "foo3.4, foo3" convention, so that seems enough of a > > reason to use that convention by default. We may want a "unless upstream > > does it differently" caveat though. > > It doesn't really matter right now but long term I think python packaging > should just natively support commands like this. Either just as a matter of > fact, opt in, or by allowing templated command names. Either way I think the > upstream tooling should and likely will follow python's lead for how these > are written. Agreed. However from my experience, most upstreams use the foo-3.4 (i.e. with dash) way. I have to admit I like using the dash more. One more reason for this is that if we start building stacks for other interpreters, e.g. pypy, it would be good to have foo-pypy3 instead of foopypy3 (or foo3pypy? :)). -- Regards, Slavek Kabrda
_______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
