It seems that none cares after all, huh? But I still do want to do it as right as it can possibly be, mostly because I now need flake8 for both python 2 and 3. So if nobody complains, I'll go with my initial thought (see my previous post here) sometime near the end of the week.

On 29 November 2012 07:09, Karol Wo¼niak <wozniakk@gmail.com> wrote:

...

OK, I'm back for a moment, so, as a maintainer of flake8 package, I guess I should write something here (and hope gmail won't mess the nesting. I still don't know how it works here...).

Coming to think about it, there IS a library in flake8. I mean, most people will just run the exec and be fine, but if you really need, you can import things from flake8 package and run it from inside the interpreter (which is what the exec does, anyway). That said, I think the closest follow up for us are python(2)-pip packages from [extra]. So, while I was a bit against it, I now think the best thing we can do is to pick up the python(2)-* convention.

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. And besides that, I don't know how other apps (e.g. syntax checking plugins for editors) using flake8 will behave. Syntastic has a way to change the exec used for checking, but I don't know about the others.

Xyne wrote:

...

While we're on the subject, can someone please explain to me again why we use "python-" and not "python3-" for Python 3 libraries?

This way, if py4 ever comes out, this will make us a new bunch of mess and a whole lot of work to do again. Isn't that great?

-- Karol "Kenji Takahashi" Wo¼niak <http://kenji.sx>

-- Pozdrawiam, Karol Wo¼niak

Karol, naming is more an arch issue then an aur/community one. Maybe post this on arch-dev-public ? LW