[aur-general] Naming convention for Python 2 and 3 apps

Karol Woźniak wozniakk at gmail.com
Mon Dec 10 18:52:12 EST 2012

It seems that none cares after all, huh?
But I still do want to do it as right as it can possibly be, mostly because
I now need flake8 for both python 2 and 3.
So if nobody complains, I'll go with my initial thought (see my previous
post here) sometime near the end of the week.

On 29 November 2012 07:09, Karol Woźniak <wozniakk at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, I'm back for a moment, so, as a maintainer of flake8 package, I guess
> I should write something here
> (and hope gmail won't mess the nesting. I still don't know how it works
> here...).
> Coming to think about it, there IS a library in flake8. I mean, most
> people will just run the exec and be fine, but if you really need, you can
> import things from flake8 package and run it from inside the interpreter
> (which is what the exec does, anyway).
> That said, I think the closest follow up for us are python(2)-pip packages
> from [extra]. So, while I was a bit against it, I now think the best thing
> we can do is to pick up the python(2)-* convention.
> That still leaves one issue, though. To allow the packages to coexist, we
> should rename python2 exec to "flake82". Maybe it's just me, but it looks
> weird. And besides that, I don't know how other apps (e.g. syntax checking
> plugins for editors) using flake8 will behave. Syntastic has a way to
> change the exec used for checking, but I don't know about the others.
> Xyne wrote:
> >While we're on the subject, can someone please explain to me again why we
> use
> >"python-" and not "python3-" for Python 3 libraries?
> This way, if py4 ever comes out, this will make us a new bunch of mess and
> a whole lot of work to do again. Isn't that great?
> --
> Karol "Kenji Takahashi" Woźniak <http://kenji.sx>

Karol Woźniak

More information about the aur-general mailing list