Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess. Hector On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P 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

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 wrote:

...

Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess. Hector

On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P 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

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Bernardo Barros 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-*

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 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros 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

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 wrote:

On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros 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