[Pulp-dev] PyPI names for Pulp3

[Austin Macdonald]

I like pulp3 better, but it has some weirdness. I'm stating the obvious,
but we wouldn't be able to keep the name for pulp 4. When we put our major
versions on PyPI, they will all be treated as completely separate projects.
I don't see a big problem there, but it is unusual.

On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Jeff Ortel <jortel at redhat.com> wrote:

> I'm very opposed to having any form of the word "project" as part of the
> name.  It's like having Firefox be
> named "firefoxproj".  Just as the Mozilla project and the Firefox
> application are completely different things,
> so are the Pulp project and the Pulp application.
>
> -1 for pulpproj
> -1 for pulp_project
>
> +1 for pulp3
>
>
> On 04/10/2017 04:05 PM, Michael Hrivnak wrote:
> > "pulpproj" has grown on me.
> >
> > For a while I was fond of something like "pulp_app", thinking as both a
> django app and celery app. Then we'd
> > have "pulp_streamer", "pulp_common", and "pulp_cli" all as top-level
> namespaces. I still think this would be a
> > fine approach, but I lean in favor of keeping our current pattern and
> just replacing "pulp" with "pulpproj".
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com
> <mailto:bbouters at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Pulp3 can't use the 'pulp' Python namespace like we did on Pulp2
> because it's already taken on PyPI and we
> >     don't want to conflict. We need to decide on some new Python package
> names.
> >
> >     I've updated a previous write-up[0] with options we have in this
> area. It talks about package name options
> >     for pip installing purposes, and it discusses how we will lay out
> the packages within site-packages.
> >
> >     I prefer the prefix of 'pulpproj' with "idea 2". I also prefer all
> packages will install under a top level
> >     dir. So that would cause platform to pip install with:
> >
> >     pip install pulpproj
> >     pip install pulpproj_cli
> >     pip install pulpproj_streamer
> >
> >     All of ^ packages would be laid out on the filesystem as:
> >
> >     /usr/lib/python3.5/site-packages/pulpproj/
> >     ├── cli
> >     ├── common
> >     ├── platform
> >     └── streamer
> >
> >     What are your thoughts and ideas? What do you prefer? Also should
> this become a PUP?
> >
> >     [0]: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444#note-7 <
> https://pulp.plan.io/issues/2444#note-7>
> >
> >     -Brian
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Pulp-dev mailing list
> >     Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
> >     https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev <
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Michael Hrivnak
> >
> > Principal Software Engineer, RHCE
> >
> > Red Hat
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Pulp-dev mailing list
> > Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20170412/4b0418c5/attachment.htm>