[Fedora-packaging] Proposal: naming convention for Python 3 packages and subpackages

[Tim Lauridsen]

On 10/30/2009 05:11 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-10-30 at 10:28 +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>    
>> On 10/30/2009 09:57 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
>>      
>>> On 10/30/2009 01:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
>>>        
>>>> On Thu, 2009-10-29 at 18:42 -0400, John Dennis wrote:
>>>>          
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>              
>>>>>            
>>> for the
>>>
>>> python-<package>  ->  python3-<package>
>>> py<package>  ->  python3-py<package>  (I think we should keep the py to
>>> make it easier to locate stuff pygpgme)
>>> <package>-python ->  python3-<package>
>>>
>>> Seem good to me.
>>>
>>> But there is a lot of packages installing stuff into
>>> /usr/lib/pythonX-Y/site-packages there don't fit 3 cases.
>>>
>>> Ex. yum
>>>
>>> It is an application, but also an python API used by other packages, how
>>> do we handle there cases.
>>>
>>> I have attacted the the sorted output from
>>>
>>> repoquery -f '/usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages/*'
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>>        
>> I have added a ordered file categorizing the packages in
>>
>>      
> Very nice, thanks!
>
> In my email I said "Python 3 module packages and subpackages", and I'm
> not being very precise about this.
>
> Can a distinction can be drawn between an rpm that "merely" packages a
> python module?   I think that many of our rpms have payloads that are
> entirely below:
>    /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages
>    /usr/share/doc/NAME-VERSION
> I suspect that most of the packages within these lists fall into this
> category:
>    "Packages starting with 'python-':"
>    "Packages starting with 'Py' or 'py' (but not 'python-')"
>    "Packages ending with '-python':" (most of these seem to be
> subpackages from a mostly non-python build)
>
>    
+1
> Contrast this with the "None of the above:" category.  At a quick look,
> most of the packages in this list appear to be using python as an
> implementation detail, in order to get some user-facing job done.  For
> these, I feel we'd port them one-by-one, and the name need not change.
>    
+1
> A complication/exception in this last category is for plugin systems and
> "stacks".  For example, yum and its various plugins/extensions don't
> mention python in their name, but they're written in python 2.
> Similarly, Django and the various django-foo packages implement the
> Django web development framework, which happens to be written in python
> 2 (hopefully will eventually have python 3 support), and "trac-foo".  My
> gut feeling for both of these cases is that we'd want python 2 and 3
> versions for a while, so perhaps a python3- prefix is ok.  That would
> give us e.g.:
> python3-trac-privateticketsplugin
> python3-TurboGears
> python3-TurboGears2
> python3-yum
>
>    
The plan for yum is to stay with python 2.x until RHEL6 is branched and 
then switch to python 3.x for the
yum head branch. (not writen in stone yet )
I don't think we will ever have both a python 2.x and 3.x version in the 
same distro, so it will fall into the previous
category and can keep the name yum.

> I noticed "wxPython" in the "none of the above" naming bucket.  This one
> definitely feels like a support module, rather than a thing to be used
> in its own right (python bindings to the wxWidgets library).
>    - wxPython3 ?
>    - python3-wx ?
> etc  not sure; maybe depends on upstream.
>    
I think i should be python3-wxPython, because people seaching for 
wxPython will find both and can make the right choice.
> Does the "purely a module" vs "is something uservisible" vs "is a stack"
> distinction sound sane?
>
>    
  Yes.

Tim