[PRQ#68754] Merge Request for python-docformatter
Xeonacid [1] filed a request to merge python-docformatter [2] into docformatter [3]: The package has a binary at `/usr/bin/docformatter`, it should not have a `python-` prefix which is for pure library. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Xeonacid/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-docformatter/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docformatter/
Request #68754 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]: [Autogenerated] Accepted merge for python-docformatter into docformatter. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/
Can this merge be reverted? The python-docformatter name was perfectly legitimate. In addition, nobody contacted me to suggest a name change. User creates a new package with no dependency, asks for a merge on the same day and this is accepted. This is just package stealing, and it breaks another package on purpose. On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:02 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Request #68754 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted merge for python-docformatter into docformatter.
Can this merge be reconsidered? The right name should be python-docformatter. This is a python package to format python docstrings, it clearly belongs to the python ecosystem, like python-black for instance. In any case, if there is a disagreement on the name, giving some notice to the original maintainer would be good form. And changing the name without notifying/updating the other packages that depend on it just creates breakage for no benefit. On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:49 PM Guillaume Horel <guillaume.horel@gmail.com> wrote:
Can this merge be reverted? The python-docformatter name was perfectly legitimate. In addition, nobody contacted me to suggest a name change. User creates a new package with no dependency, asks for a merge on the same day and this is accepted. This is just package stealing, and it breaks another package on purpose.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:02 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Request #68754 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted merge for python-docformatter into docformatter.
Hello Guillaume, The `python-` prefix is reserved for packages that (only) provide python libraries / modules. The docformatter package provides `/usr/bin/docformatter` which can be used as-is. The sole reason that it is a program developed in python or that it should be used in a python ecosystem doesn't justify the `python-` prefix on its own. The merge / rename is appropriate here. As for packages that depend on `python-docformatter`, there shouldn't be any breakages as the docformatter PKGBUILD provides it [1] (and has been since its first commit). So no issue there as well. However, I admit the lack of upfront notice to the original maintainer and the "hostile takeover" is unexpected and unappreciated. I am sincerely sorry that I missed that when accepting the merge request. @Xeonacid May I ask you to sort such things out in collaboration with the original maintainer next time? Submitting a new package and filling a merge request like this without any upfront notice isn't nice, indeed. Can you please discuss with Guillaume and find a solution that would fit all parties (e.g. co-maintenance or something)? Thanks in advance :) [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=docformatter#n13 -- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz On 2/11/25 3:22 AM, Guillaume Horel wrote:
Can this merge be reconsidered? The right name should be python- docformatter. This is a python package to format python docstrings, it clearly belongs to the python ecosystem, like python-black for instance. In any case, if there is a disagreement on the name, giving some notice to the original maintainer would be good form. And changing the name without notifying/updating the other packages that depend on it just creates breakage for no benefit.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:49 PM Guillaume Horel <guillaume.horel@gmail.com <mailto:guillaume.horel@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can this merge be reverted? The python-docformatter name was perfectly legitimate. In addition, nobody contacted me to suggest a name change. User creates a new package with no dependency, asks for a merge on the same day and this is accepted. This is just package stealing, and it breaks another package on purpose.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:02 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org <mailto:notify@aur.archlinux.org>> wrote:
Request #68754 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted merge for python-docformatter into docformatter.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/ <https:// aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/>
On 2025-02-11 16:32, Robin Candau wrote:
@Xeonacid May I ask you to sort such things out in collaboration with the original maintainer next time? Submitting a new package and filling a merge request like this without any upfront notice isn't nice, indeed. Can you please discuss with Guillaume and find a solution that would fit all parties (e.g. co-maintenance or something)?
Sincerely apologize for that. Will do communicate first next time. @Guillaume I've added you as co-maintainer of docformatter. Feel free to contact me if you want maintainer. Sorry for that again! Best regards, Xeonacid
Hi Robin, thanks for the explanation. If that's a rule it's not applied very consistently then: see python-black, python-pip and plenty of other packages in the arch main repo that also have an executable in bin. I'll work things out with @Xeonacid. I see he added me as a co-maintainer, thanks. Guillaume On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 3:32 AM Robin Candau <antiz@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hello Guillaume,
The `python-` prefix is reserved for packages that (only) provide python libraries / modules. The docformatter package provides `/usr/bin/docformatter` which can be used as-is. The sole reason that it is a program developed in python or that it should be used in a python ecosystem doesn't justify the `python-` prefix on its own. The merge / rename is appropriate here.
As for packages that depend on `python-docformatter`, there shouldn't be any breakages as the docformatter PKGBUILD provides it [1] (and has been since its first commit). So no issue there as well.
However, I admit the lack of upfront notice to the original maintainer and the "hostile takeover" is unexpected and unappreciated. I am sincerely sorry that I missed that when accepting the merge request.
@Xeonacid May I ask you to sort such things out in collaboration with the original maintainer next time? Submitting a new package and filling a merge request like this without any upfront notice isn't nice, indeed. Can you please discuss with Guillaume and find a solution that would fit all parties (e.g. co-maintenance or something)?
Thanks in advance :)
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/tree/PKGBUILD?h=docformatter#n13
-- Regards, Robin Candau / Antiz
On 2/11/25 3:22 AM, Guillaume Horel wrote:
Can this merge be reconsidered? The right name should be python- docformatter. This is a python package to format python docstrings, it clearly belongs to the python ecosystem, like python-black for instance. In any case, if there is a disagreement on the name, giving some notice to the original maintainer would be good form. And changing the name without notifying/updating the other packages that depend on it just creates breakage for no benefit.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 4:49 PM Guillaume Horel <guillaume.horel@gmail.com <mailto:guillaume.horel@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can this merge be reverted? The python-docformatter name was perfectly legitimate. In addition, nobody contacted me to suggest a name change. User creates a new package with no dependency, asks for a merge on the same day and this is accepted. This is just package stealing, and it breaks another package on purpose.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 11:02 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org <mailto:notify@aur.archlinux.org>> wrote:
Request #68754 has been Accepted by Antiz [1]:
[Autogenerated] Accepted merge for python-docformatter into docformatter.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/ <https:// aur.archlinux.org/account/Antiz/>
This seems like a pretty bogus reason. There are plenty of python packages which have a bin entry point with a python- name. Is that an official arch policy? This package is mostly used as a library. On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:03 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Xeonacid [1] filed a request to merge python-docformatter [2] into docformatter [3]:
The package has a binary at `/usr/bin/docformatter`, it should not have a `python-` prefix which is for pure library.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Xeonacid/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-docformatter/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docformatter/
python-docformatter seems to qualify as "a program that is strongly coupled to the Python ecosystem". From ArchWiki Python package guidelines [a]: Python 3 library modules, use python-modulename. Also use the prefix if the package provides a program that is strongly coupled to the Python ecosystem (e.g. pip or tox). For other applications, use only the program name. [a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Python_package_guidelines On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 8:12 AM Guillaume Horel <guillaume.horel@gmail.com> wrote:
This seems like a pretty bogus reason. There are plenty of python packages which have a bin entry point with a python- name. Is that an official arch policy? This package is mostly used as a library.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:03 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Xeonacid [1] filed a request to merge python-docformatter [2] into docformatter [3]:
The package has a binary at `/usr/bin/docformatter`, it should not have a `python-` prefix which is for pure library.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Xeonacid/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-docformatter/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docformatter/
That was my read too. Can this be reverted? I don't think this merge was the right call, thanks. On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:43 AM xiota <aur@mentalfossa.com> wrote:
python-docformatter seems to qualify as "a program that is strongly coupled to the Python ecosystem".
From ArchWiki Python package guidelines [a]:
Python 3 library modules, use python-modulename. Also use the prefix if the package provides a program that is strongly coupled to the Python ecosystem (e.g. pip or tox). For other applications, use only the program name.
[a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Python_package_guidelines
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 8:12 AM Guillaume Horel <guillaume.horel@gmail.com> wrote:
This seems like a pretty bogus reason. There are plenty of python packages which have a bin entry point with a python- name. Is that an official arch policy? This package is mostly used as a library.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:03 AM <notify@aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
Xeonacid [1] filed a request to merge python-docformatter [2] into docformatter [3]:
The package has a binary at `/usr/bin/docformatter`, it should not have a `python-` prefix which is for pure library.
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Xeonacid/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-docformatter/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docformatter/
participants (5)
-
Guillaume Horel
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
Robin Candau
-
Xeonacid
-
xiota