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

[Lone_Wolf]

> 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 Wo¼niak <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" Wo¼niak <http://kenji.sx>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Pozdrawiam,
> Karol Wo¼niak
>
>
Karol, naming is more an arch issue then an aur/community one.
Maybe post this on arch-dev-public ?

LW