Re: module package naming

2007-03-21 Thread Josselin Mouette
Le jeudi 22 mars 2007 à 00:06 +0100, Thomas Jollans a écrit : > There is also the option of only having one in the distribution, which should > be PySyck for having more features. This would mean chucking the official > binding out of debian, which I am not entirely comfortable with either. If i

Re: module package naming

2007-03-21 Thread Thomas Jollans
On Wednesday 21 March 2007 23:26, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the debian python policy states that module packages should be named > > python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which > > contains t

Re: module package naming

2007-03-21 Thread Pierre Habouzit
On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 08:46:35PM +0100, Thomas Jollans wrote: > Hi, > > the debian python policy states that module packages should be named > python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which > contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT >

module package naming

2007-03-21 Thread Thomas Jollans
Hi, the debian python policy states that module packages should be named python-foo, foo being the module name. I intend to package PySyck, which contains the module/package 'syck', which is also in python-syck (AFAICT PySyck is basically a fork of the upstream bindings). Would python-pysyck be