[aur-requests] [PRQ#12585] Merge Request for polysh
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 [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Felixoid/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/polysh/ [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-polysh/
Request #12585 has been rejected by yan12125 [1]: As per the Python packaging guideline [1], this package should be called polysh instead of python-polysh as it's an application written in Python, not a Python library. [1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Python_package_guidelines#Package_namin... [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/yan12125/
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
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
On September 3, 2018 9:25:08 AM GMT+02:00, Felixoid via aur-requests <aur-requests@archlinux.org> wrote:
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'.
It contains modules because it's not all spit into a single file but properly split, which doesn't mean it must be a programmable API. It's a prompt/cli tool to multiplex connections. It broke because it was built with python 3.6 hence containing the required files there. For unsupported AUR packages one must handle and rebuild themselves. I agree here that it should be called polysh without python prefix. Cheers Levente
On 9/3/18 3:25 AM, Felixoid wrote:
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].
Firefox breaks (frequently!) when "icu" is updated. Notwithstanding that it's a repository package and thusly gets rebuilt on time, does that mean that it's proper package name should be "icu-firefox" because it has a binary dependency on the icu package? Maybe it should even be renamed to gtk3-freetype-sqlite3-fontconfig-libjpeg-libvpx-ffmpeg-nss-libpulse-pango-cairo-dbus-firefox? Should pacman be renamed to curl-libarchive-pacman? Should bash be renamed to readline-bash? No, that would be silly. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Thank you, Eli. That's an interesting example. I've got the idea. Let's the package stay as is. Have a nice time, Mikhail. пн, 3 сент. 2018 г. в 14:07, Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@archlinux.org>:
On 9/3/18 3:25 AM, Felixoid wrote:
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].
Firefox breaks (frequently!) when "icu" is updated. Notwithstanding that it's a repository package and thusly gets rebuilt on time, does that mean that it's proper package name should be "icu-firefox" because it has a binary dependency on the icu package? Maybe it should even be renamed to
gtk3-freetype-sqlite3-fontconfig-libjpeg-libvpx-ffmpeg-nss-libpulse-pango-cairo-dbus-firefox?
Should pacman be renamed to curl-libarchive-pacman?
Should bash be renamed to readline-bash?
No, that would be silly.
-- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
participants (4)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Felixoid
-
Levente Polyak
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org