On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
Xyne didn't appear to have write access so passing on his message as follows:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Xyne <xyne@archlinux.ca> Date: 14 September 2012 19:57 Subject: Re: [arch-dev-public] [RFC] Python 3.3.0 and PEP 394
Rashif Ray Rahman wrote:
Good one, we must provide for that. Nevertheless, what I meant was _not_ to have:
python-qt python2-qt python-gtk python2-gtk
But to have:
pyqt python2-pyqt pygtk python2-pygtk
As we have now. Prepending 'python' everywhere is fine, as long as the 'pyX' name remains. Now the ideal scenario would be:
John: Fetch me 'pyalpm' Pacman: Do you want python(3)-pyalpm or python2-pyalpm?
Now that I look at it that way prepending 'python' would be better.
I also think that prefixing "python" in all cases makes sense. The prefix indicates that it is a library/module in our naming scheme and omitting it even in the case of naming redundancy (e.g. python-py*) creates exceptions to an otherwise uniform rule.
I also strongly support the idea of using
python3-foo python2-foo
even if Python 4 may be a long way off. It is a consistent naming scheme that is completely unambiguous and it will avoid considerable hassle when Python 4 is finally released.
I think it's not a matter of time. If python 4 is released with no major breaking with python 3, update will be smooth and we will never want to have a python4-foo and python3-foo like we don't want to have python3.2-foo and python3.3-foo. Another case, I talked with some python dev last week which explain me that python3 can be considered as a new language. They also suggest that /usr/bin/python should remains python2 and new program should use python3 in there sheebang (as mark of compatibily) Cheers, -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer www.seblu.net