[aur-general] python renaming

[Thomas Dziedzic]

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Bernardo Barros
<bernardobarros2 at gmail.com>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-*