On 03/13/2018 10:11 AM, Ole Streicher wrote:
> and makes it harder for external people to find the package.
I don't see how. A query to https://packages.debian.org/foo will also
show python-foo, and same with apt-cache search. So how is it harder?
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Thomas Goirand writes:
> On 03/13/2018 12:29 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
>> Imo, we should just make it clear in policy that source packages
>> should be named `foo` or `python-foo`,
>> and corresponding doc packages should be named `foo-doc` or `python-foo-doc`.
>
> Very often, "foo" is already
Quoting Thomas Goirand :
Which is why I think we should have standardize on python-foo for the
source package (which is what I do).
Same here, even if foo is not yet taken.
Save the environment, do not pollute the global packages namespace! :~)
Le mardi 13 mars 2018 à 09:18 +0100, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> On 03/13/2018 12:29 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> > Imo, we should just make it clear in policy that source packages
> > should be named `foo` or `python-foo`,
> > and corresponding doc packages should be named `foo-doc` or
> > `pytho
On 03/13/2018 12:29 AM, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> Imo, we should just make it clear in policy that source packages
> should be named `foo` or `python-foo`,
> and corresponding doc packages should be named `foo-doc` or `python-foo-doc`.
Very often, "foo" is already taken by another package, and we
Ghislain Vaillant writes:
> Definitely [do not name the documentation package ‘python3-foo-doc’],
> indeed. The python- prefixes in python-foo and python-foo-doc are not
> exactly equivalent. The former usage refers to the Python 2
> interpreter, the latter refers to Python *the language*.
Yes,
2018-03-12 22:30 GMT+00:00 W. Martin Borgert :
> On 2018-03-12 23:15, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>> But what now that python-foo is gone? Should I rename the doc package?
>
> No, but that's just my gut feeling.
Definitely not, indeed. The python- prefixes in python-foo and
python-foo-doc are not exactl
On 2018-03-12 23:15, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> But what now that python-foo is gone? Should I rename the doc package?
No, but that's just my gut feeling.
On 03/12/2018 11:16 AM, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> policy (12.3) says, that putting the contents of package-doc
> into /usr/share/doc/package/ (main package) is preferred over
> /usr/share/doc/package-doc/. debhelper detects the Python 2
> package as main package. One can override this to
Quoting Simon McVittie :
In python-mpd-doc and python-dbus-doc, I installed the real documentation
files in /u/s/d/python-*-doc, but placed symlinks to them in both
/u/s/d/python-* and /u/s/d/python3-*. Perhaps that's a reasonable way
to achieve the spirit of the Policy §12.3 recommendation while
On Mon, 12 Mar 2018 at 11:16:16 +0100, W. Martin Borgert wrote:
> policy (12.3) says, that putting the contents of package-doc
> into /usr/share/doc/package/ (main package) is preferred over
> /usr/share/doc/package-doc/. debhelper detects the Python 2
> package as main package. One can override th
Hi,
policy (12.3) says, that putting the contents of package-doc
into /usr/share/doc/package/ (main package) is preferred over
/usr/share/doc/package-doc/. debhelper detects the Python 2
package as main package. One can override this to the path for
the Python 3 package, but both feels wrong to me
12 matches
Mail list logo