Good day's time Eli and Yen, I hope you are well. First of all, Eli, thank you for the answer. You are right, and it's difficult for me to call my own "deprecation way" somehow but "stupid". I wasn't happy, of course, about it but didn't mention the proper way like "Merge request" one month ago. I'm sorry for it and for that fact that it was in AUR for almost a month. Because of it, I've fixed the package already. Nevertheless, Yen, polysh package contains not an only script by itself but modules in /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/, see [1]. Regarding this, I couldn't say, that polysh doesn't provide modules. Moreover, when two months ago python was upgraded from 3.6 to 3.7, the package was broken without any hints. That's why I've thought that it's a good idea to add the prefix. IMHO, it doesn't contradict with [2]. I could only agree If you are 100% sure that the package must stay as is. But as I see, it contains prerequisites to be named as 'python-polysh'. Best regards, Mikhail. [1] https://pastebin.com/cDdXudh2 [2] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_package_guidelines#Package_namin... вс, 2 сент. 2018 г. в 9:24, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>:
On 9/1/18 11:53 AM, notify--- via aur-requests wrote:
Felixoid [1] filed a request to merge polysh [2] into python-polysh [3]:
Hi. I would like to "rename" this package into the proper convenient python=project
"proper". Yeah...
Can you not do nonsense like:
https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/commit/?h=polysh&id=483105dadedceb2ecbc5e7fba70bf58fd108bd1a
Leaving the package up for a month but making it only package a python script exiting after some silly message? is *not* how you "deprecate" a package, even if we assumed it was correct to deprecate it in the first place.
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User