Le 2012-11-28 01:53, Allen Li a écrit :
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 07:43:07PM -0500, Yichao Yu wrote:
Hi Allen,
I think the convention is to make two packages for software that support both Python 2 and 3. For example, in the extra repo, there's
python-cairo and python2-cairo python-cchardet and python2-cchardet python-memcached and python2-memcached etc. Well, both of them are python libraries, which cannot support both
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:48 PM, 小龙 陈 <chillermillerlong@hotmail.com> wrote: python2 and python3 in the same binary package (OK, you can, by including both python2 and python3 modules but that's not the point....)
According to a previous email on the same list[1], you probably still need to create two packages for pyton2 and python3 if you want to support both of them (and probably rename the binary to avoid conflict.)
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/aur-general@archlinux.org/msg19241.html Well, the problem is flake8 is a python app, not a library. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing, but should the python-*, python2-* naming convention also be used in this case? If it is an application and does not provide a module that could be included in another application, then I suggest to depend on python3 only and keep the name "flake8".
Stéphane