[aur-general] python renaming
Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1]. There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2] and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively. So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just python-jinja2? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651 -- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess. Hector On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P <markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1]. There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2] and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively. So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just python-jinja2?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
-- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
-- Hector Martínez-Seara Monné mail: hseara@gmail.com Tel: +34656271145 Tel: +358442709253
I don't know if the renaming patch was applied to AUR and if it's possible to just rename the packages or they have to be deleted and be uploaded again though. Let a TU tell us. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Hector Martinez-Seara <hseara@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess. Hector
On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P <markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1]. There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2] and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively. So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just python-jinja2?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
-- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
-- Hector Martínez-Seara Monné mail: hseara@gmail.com Tel: +34656271145 Tel: +358442709253
-- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
On 06/19/2011 11:11 AM, Axilleas P wrote:
I don't know if the renaming patch was applied to AUR and if it's possible to just rename the packages or they have to be deleted and be uploaded again though. Let a TU tell us.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Hector Martinez-Seara <hseara@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess. Hector
On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P<markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1]. There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2] and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively. So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just python-jinja2?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
-- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
-- Hector Martínez-Seara Monné mail: hseara@gmail.com Tel: +34656271145 Tel: +358442709253
We Can't rename packages -- Jelle van der Waa
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...
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-*
On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
Correct. However, with a previous discussion [1] and a bug report [2] lingering I think most of us are hesitant to make any moves. Maybe we're just hoping for someone to step up with a mighty roar and set the record straight. -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
Correct. However, with a previous discussion [1] and a bug report [2] lingering I think most of us are hesitant to make a move. Maybe we're just hoping for someone to step up with a mighty roar and set the record straight. [1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-April/019958.htm... [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23139 -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
Hi, I opened the mentioned bug and I still think the same way. Let's hope the changes will be conducted any time soon with all python packages. The current policy is in my opinion the correct for a roll up distribution as archlinux. python-* -> python3 python2-* -> old python 2 version Hector On 19 June 2011 19:57, Ray Rashif <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
Correct. However, with a previous discussion [1] and a bug report [2] lingering I think most of us are hesitant to make a move. Maybe we're just hoping for someone to step up with a mighty roar and set the record straight.
[1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-April/019958.htm... [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23139
-- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
-- Hector Martínez-Seara Monné mail: hseara@gmail.com Tel: +34656271145 Tel: +358442709253
Anyway, could you please just delete [1] for now so that I upload it with its right name? Thanks. On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Axilleas P <markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1]. There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2] and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively. So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just python-jinja2?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497 [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870 [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
-- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
-- (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination. (> <) come join the dark side. /_|_\ (we have cookies.)
Should we not follow how it's done in the main Arch repos? python-* is updated to reflect the current python standard, in this case python3 and a new package is created, python2-*. Then, when pythonN is released a new packaged python3-* will be created and python-* updated to reflect the new pythonN.
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jason Reardon <aetherfly87@gmail.com> wrote:
Should we not follow how it's done in the main Arch repos?
+1 sadly enough, there are currently 55 aur packages not following this specification and a community package (FS#23139 [1] )... [1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=details&action=details.addvote&task_id=23139
participants (8)
-
Axilleas P
-
Bernardo Barros
-
Hector Martinez-Seara
-
Jason Reardon
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Martti Kühne
-
Ray Rashif
-
Thomas Dziedzic