On 07/04/11 02:17, Jan de Groot wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 08:20 +1000, Allan McRae wrote:
I think the correct approach is the one that has been started:
python2-foo -> python-2.x package python-foo -> python-3.x package
I am against using python3-foo instead of python-foo...
We just need to bite the bullet and get this entirely fixed in our repos.
So naming scheme is more important than smooth upgrade paths? You can fix everything in the repos, but you can't make a smooth upgrade path without leaving lots of unused python3 libraries on systems where python2-depending apps are installed. With numpy, I chose the easy and smooth way, and that's the way of adding provides and using python2 and python3 naming.
Consistent naming is more important to me. That way it is easy to find the package you want. At the moment "pacman -S python-numpy" installs a python2 version, which is inconsistent with (almost?) every other python module providing python-2.x and python-3.x versions. If this is all done in one go, then we can do a news announcement ad advise that "pacman -Qqtd" will show the unnecessary packages.
As a sidenote, I think it will be very funny to see python4 getting released in the future. Then we'll have to rename all python packages to python3-* and name the new ones python-* again.
When discussing the policy for a /usr/bin/python2 symlink, there were some comments from the main python developers that indicate this will not be an issue for many, many, many years... But anyway, if python-4 does eventuate, we will know well in advance and can transition package names properly using provides/replaces which would then be removed on python-4 release. That ship sailed long ago for python-3.x. Allan