[Fedora-packaging] Proposal: naming convention for Python 3 packages and subpackages
jdennis at redhat.com
Thu Oct 29 22:42:51 UTC 2009
On 10/29/2009 06:27 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> I rather like the idea of standardizing on a "python3-" prefix for _all_
> Python 3 module packages and subpackages, even if this leads to
> inconsistencies with their counterparts in the python 2 stack. It would
> make the "threeness" of the packages stand out more.
Initially this sounds good to me. Because python 2 and python 3 are
incompatible it's probably important we separate them at the packaging
level, this seems like a good approach as any (even with some warts on
the corner cases).
However package maintainers might not like the idea of having to
maintain double the number of their packages for an interim period and I
could see them wanting to have just one package that installs into both
the python2 and python3 library locations. Also perhaps we don't want to
inflate the number of python packages by 2x. Having not followed this
discussion from it's outset I'm wondering if we might want to consider
allowing a single python package to support both python versions. I'm
sure there are multiple reasons why this is a horrible idea, but I
thought I would throw it out for consideration and let it get shot down :-)
John Dennis <jdennis at redhat.com>
Looking to carve out IT costs?
More information about the Fedora-packaging