FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-19-2011, 09:03 AM
Hector Martinez-Seara
 
Default python renaming

Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess.
Hector

On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P <markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1].
> There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2]
> and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively.
> So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed
> accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just
> python-jinja2?
>
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497
> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870
> [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
>
>
> --
> (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile
> (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination.
> (> <) come join the dark side.
> /_|_ (we have cookies.)
>



--
Hector Martínez-Seara Monné
mail: hseara@gmail.com
Tel: +34656271145
Tel: +358442709253
 
Old 06-19-2011, 09:11 AM
Axilleas P
 
Default python renaming

I don't know if the renaming patch was applied to AUR and if it's
possible to just rename the packages or they have to be deleted and be
uploaded again though. Let a TU tell us.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Hector Martinez-Seara
<hseara@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess.
> Hector
>
> On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P <markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1].
>> There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2]
>> and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively.
>> So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed
>> accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just
>> python-jinja2?
>>
>>
>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497
>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870
>> [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
>>
>>
>> --
>> (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile
>> (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination.
>> (> <) come join the dark side.
>> /_|_ (we have cookies.)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Hector Martínez-Seara Monné
> mail: hseara@gmail.com
> Tel: +34656271145
> Tel: +358442709253
>



--
(\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile
(0.o ) to help him achieve world domination.
(> <) come join the dark side.
/_|_ (we have cookies.)
 
Old 06-19-2011, 12:13 PM
Jelle van der Waa
 
Default python renaming

On 06/19/2011 11:11 AM, Axilleas P wrote:

I don't know if the renaming patch was applied to AUR and if it's
possible to just rename the packages or they have to be deleted and be
uploaded again though. Let a TU tell us.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Hector Martinez-Seara
<hseara@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes, I completely agree. Python Packages are right now a mess.
Hector

On 19 June 2011 09:08, Axilleas P<markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:

Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1].
There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2]
and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively.
So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed
accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just
python-jinja2?


[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497
[2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870
[3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651


--
(\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile
(0.o ) to help him achieve world domination.
(> <) come join the dark side.
/_|_ (we have cookies.)




--
Hector Martínez-Seara Monné
mail: hseara@gmail.com
Tel: +34656271145
Tel: +358442709253





We Can't rename packages

--
Jelle van der Waa
 
Old 06-19-2011, 01:09 PM
Bernardo Barros
 
Default python renaming

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...
 
Old 06-19-2011, 01:19 PM
Thomas Dziedzic
 
Default python renaming

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:09 AM, Bernardo Barros
<bernardobarros2@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-*
 
Old 06-19-2011, 01:30 PM
Axilleas P
 
Default python renaming

Anyway, could you please just delete [1] for now so that I upload it
with its right name? Thanks.

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 9:08 AM, Axilleas P <markeleas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just yesterday I adopted python-jinja2 [1].
> There are also two other similar packages. One is python-jinja1 [2]
> and python3-jinja2 [3], relying on python2 and python3 respectively.
> So, my question is, shouldn't packages depended on python2 be renamed
> accordingly? In this case [1][2] to python2-jinja1/2 and [3] to just
> python-jinja2?
>
>
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=41497
> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=26870
> [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=38651
>
>
> --
> (\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile
> (0.o ) to help him achieve world domination.
> (> <) come join the dark side.
> /_|_ (we have cookies.)
>



--
(\_ /) copy the bunny to your profile
(0.o ) to help him achieve world domination.
(> <) come join the dark side.
/_|_ (we have cookies.)
 
Old 06-19-2011, 01:50 PM
Jason Reardon
 
Default python renaming

Should we not follow how it's done in the main Arch repos?

python-* is updated to reflect the current python standard, in this case
python3 and a new package is created, python2-*. Then, when pythonN is
released a new packaged python3-* will be created and python-* updated to
reflect the new pythonN.
 
Old 06-19-2011, 02:23 PM
Martti Kühne
 
Default python renaming

On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Jason Reardon <aetherfly87@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should we not follow how it's done in the main Arch repos?

+1
sadly enough, there are currently 55 aur packages not following this
specification and a community package (FS#23139 [1] )...

[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/index.php?do=details&action=details.addvote&task_i d=23139
 
Old 06-19-2011, 04:52 PM
Ray Rashif
 
Default python renaming

On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...

Correct. However, with a previous discussion [1] and a bug report [2]
lingering I think most of us are hesitant to make any moves. Maybe
we're just hoping for someone to step up with a mighty roar and set
the record straight.


--
GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
 
Old 06-19-2011, 04:57 PM
Ray Rashif
 
Default python renaming

On 19 June 2011 21:09, Bernardo Barros <bernardobarros2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...

Correct. However, with a previous discussion [1] and a bug report [2]
lingering I think most of us are hesitant to make a move. Maybe we're
just hoping for someone to step up with a mighty roar and set the
record straight.

[1] http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-April/019958.html
[2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/23139


--
GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:24 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org