[aur-general] Naming convention for Python 2 and 3 apps
hseara at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 11:04:36 EST 2012
2012/12/11 Karol Woźniak <wozniakk at gmail.com>
> It seems that none cares after all, huh?
We not only care but we also encourage the people to do it right. When we
see a package which do not follow the convention we ask the owner to change
it asap. Still you might notice that some applications specially
in community or extra still do not follow the convention. It was agree a
long time ago, more than a year certainly, that those packages with bad
naming scheme will be left untouched and not changed if they did not have a
python2 counterpart. It was decided that they will be rename wen updates
come just because it was an insane amount of job for the TUs..
> 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.
It looks weird true though acceptable. You could also call it different
flake8-python2 if you really want to make yourself clear.
> > >"python-" and not "python3-" for Python 3 libraries?
This issue was discussed a long time ago. I have to agree that I voted
for the python3 naming scheme at that time, but we it was decided the
opposite and I accepted. So should you. The idea was that any person
willing to use a package compatible with the default version of arch should
not remember which is the default python version of arch. Moreover, we
wanted to push the development of python3 modules which I have the feeling
we have achieved. Nowadays, most of the modules I use in python have the
python 3 counterpart. Bu naming python3 as python we wanted to express our
support for the transition.
I hope I bought some light on the issue, and if you want more info please
look in the mails archive of arch-general you will find long discussions
More information about the aur-general