Hi, 2012/12/11 Karol Woźniak <wozniakk@gmail.com>
It seems that none cares after all, huh?
We not only care but we also encourage the people to do it right. When we see a package which do not follow the convention we ask the owner to change it asap. Still you might notice that some applications specially in community or extra still do not follow the convention. It was agree a long time ago, more than a year certainly, that those packages with bad naming scheme will be left untouched and not changed if they did not have a python2 counterpart. It was decided that they will be rename wen updates come just because it was an insane amount of job for the TUs..
That still leaves one issue, though. To allow the packages to coexist, we
should rename python2 exec to "flake82". Maybe it's just me, but it looks weird.
It looks weird true though acceptable. You could also call it different flake8-python2 if you really want to make yourself clear.
"python-" and not "python3-" for Python 3 libraries?
This issue was discussed a long time ago. I have to agree that I voted for the python3 naming scheme at that time, but we it was decided the opposite and I accepted. So should you. The idea was that any person willing to use a package compatible with the default version of arch should not remember which is the default python version of arch. Moreover, we wanted to push the development of python3 modules which I have the feeling we have achieved. Nowadays, most of the modules I use in python have the python 3 counterpart. Bu naming python3 as python we wanted to express our support for the transition. I hope I bought some light on the issue, and if you want more info please look in the mails archive of arch-general you will find long discussions about that, Hector