Naming of python binary packages
Bringing bug 1023512 [0] to the Debian Python list:
[0] https://bugs.debian.org/1023512
> > According to the Debian Python Policy Section 4.3, binary package
> > names should be named after the *import* name of the module, not the
> > PyPI distribution name.
> Unfortunately, I do not agree at all with this policy. The import name has
> no importance, and IMO, we should change that policy so that the package
> name matches the egg-name rather than the import name.
I wouldn't quite say it has no importance. It describes which part of
the filesystem the package owns.
I don't know the history of this policy offhand, but I presume it's also
because not all Python modules come from PyPI, and we needed a standard
way to address them. Also, we sometimes break PyPI distributions up into
separate binary packages. They are closer to a source package than a
Debian binary package.
FIWIW: I am not convinced that Python made the right decision in
allowing distribution names to diverge from import names, it tends to
just create confusion. But that's neither here nor there.
> In many places, that would make our life of package maintainer better. A
> good example is all the oslo libraries in OpenStack, that all have a dot in
> their egg-name, but an underscore in the import path (so that it works
> better under python3). In this specific case, using the dash instead of the
> dot would be really stupid and break many things, like automation for
> dependencies.
Presumably that can be solved with a few automated adjustments, (like
the . -> _ transformation you describe).
Having a straightforward distribution name -> package name mapping would
make automating dependencies simpler, I agree. But we have tooling that
handles that already: dh-python and its' pydist data.
> In fact, this extend to all of the Debian Python module archive.
>
> If you want to discuss this further, please open a thread in the list.
I don't think the solution here is for your packages to use
distribution-derived names while everyone else's use the policy-defined
names. Can we rather come to a consensus on what we should be using?
My vote would be strongly towards maintaining the status quo of the
policy-defined names.
I don't see any strong argument for changing this.
Stefano
--
Stefano Rivera
http://tumbleweed.org.za/
+1 415 683 3272
Reply to: