xantares 09 wrote:

Sorry, here are the links: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python3-aur/ https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/python-aur/

...

From: xantares09@hotmail.com To: aur-general@archlinux.org; xyne@archlinux.ca Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:22:17 +0000 Subject: [aur-general] Remove python3-aur

Hi,

python3-aur should be renamed to python-aur to follow arch packaging standards, I recreated and disowned a python-aur for xyne to adopt. Please remove the old pyhon3-aur.

I have no intention of playing whack-a-mole with Python package names whenever Python gets around to the next major version bump even if that is years away. Each major version is incompatible with the previous ones and should therefore be treated as a separate language. Changing the names leads to transition periods of broken dependency graphs. Package names should be static and future proof. This makes it easier for everyone involved (developers, packagers, users). There are numerous python3-* packages that have peacefully existed in the AUR for years without issue. As I have so far been unable to convince others of the value of persistent naming, I prefer to leave things as they are. Regards, Xyne

On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:53:08PM +0000, xantares 09 wrote:

...

Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:59:08 +0000 From: xyne@archlinux.ca To: aur-general@archlinux.org Subject: Re: [aur-general] Remove python3-aur

I have no intention of playing whack-a-mole with Python package names whenever Python gets around to the next major version bump even if that is years away. Each major version is incompatible with the previous ones and should therefore be treated as a separate language. Changing the names leads to transition periods of broken dependency graphs. Package names should be static and future proof. This makes it easier for everyone involved (developers, packagers, users).

There are numerous python3-* packages that have peacefully existed in the AUR for years without issue. As I have so far been unable to convince others of the value of persistent naming, I prefer to leave things as they are.

Regards, Xyne

I wouldn't go as far as qualifying python3 a different laguage. It may introduce api breakage, But it's possible to adapt the same codebase to be compatible with both versions.

They are some python3-* packages, yes, but they mostly belong to you :!

What do we do from here ? Remove python-aur :?

Regards, xan.

I don't see any problem with leaving them as python3-*. In my mind, python2-*, python3-* are unambiguously named, and python-* merely refers to the "current stable". However, I have seen python-* refer to both python2 and python3, depending on how old the package or upstream is. I think the best policy would be to change python-* to python2-* when that disambiguation is necessary, and let python3-* well enough alone. They clearly describe the package, so what's the problem? Allen