On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com>wrote:
python3-* do not make sense on a rolling release distro.
In Fedora, for example, they do. Then in Fedora 16 or whatever, they just switch names. No problem.
For a rolling release distro I think we might think with an eye ahead to avoid future problems. For example, take to python packages, A and B: A has a python3 version, B does not have one yet. Since we don't have a python3 version of B, we say right now:
'Oh, there is no reason to name a package python2-B since there is no python3 version yet...'
Is that really true? I don't think so.. Because then we name them: python2-A, python-A, python-B.
Three months later a python3 version of B is released, then we called it python3-B... or.. we will have double work renaming stuff. Even worse if they have different maintainers...
I think the solution is to be *very* consistent with packages names whatever the situation of the python3 version is right now. In other words: pick a guideline and stick to it. If python2-X/python-X is the way to go, no matter there is a python3 package or not, use this convention...
agreed, I would prefer if we used python2-* and python3-* and probably no python-*