[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensuse-packaging
Subject:    Re: [opensuse-packaging] Re: Python packages naming rules
From:       jan matejek <jmatejek () suse ! cz>
Date:       2017-08-24 11:23:32
Message-ID: 3201c980-00d6-689c-00f5-20677d3d1eee () suse ! cz
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/mixed)]


On 24.8.2017 09:23, Sebastian wrote:
>> All Python module packages, whether pure Python or C-based, should be
> called python-modulename. modulename must be the name of the package in
> the package's setup.py, which is equal to the filename of the source

I would remove the "equal to tarball filename" part. There is no guarantee about that.

> tarball. If this differs from the name on the Python Package Index, the
> official third-party software repository for the Python programming
> language, the packgage should provide this name too.

better: "package should also provide 'python-<pypi name>'

Maybe also something about packages without setup.py? "When a package doesn't exist on PyPI and no
setup.py is present, the <modulename> is left to the packager discretion. Upstream preferred name,
tarball name or site-packages directory name are reasonable choices."

> 
> And does the Packaging guidelines change process apply here?
> https://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Packaging_guidelines_change_process IMO
> it does.

We are discussing the change right now, so that can be checked off :) Other than that, let's see.
This is a clarification of ambiguity, and for 99 % of packages it does not represent a change.

We *could* test this in rpmlint though. That would catch messed up packages that now definitely
exist. We could get a pypi-checker that would also verify Requires against setup.py and requirements.txt
(i hereby propose a rpmlint check, that's another point done ;) )
Seriously though, this would be nice, but requires some amount of work for which I definitely don't
have the capacity right now. Putting it on the long-term TODO, contributions welcome.

Even as a clarification, it's worth announcing, so we might want to let the Package Guidelines Team
know.

I don't think we need to bother with a RFC and a 14-day wait for this; in any case, we can start
using the guideline even before "formally accepting", because, again, it's resolving an ambiguity.
But of course feel free to send a RFC if you think it should be done.

regards
m.

> 
> Sebastian
> 
> On 08/22/2017 05:54 PM, Thomas Bechtold wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21.08.2017 14:37, jan matejek wrote:
>>> On 18.8.2017 16:41, Thomas Bechtold wrote:
>>>> There is a difference if we translate pip requirements (eg via
>>>> metaextract[1]) to rpm requires
>>>> (assuming that other pip packages use the correct name). The name we
>>>> should use is then one that is
>>>> written in the setup.py/setup.cfg file. Which is "gogs_client". So
>>>> the correct name is imo
>>>> python-gogs_client .
>>>
>>> That makes sense and disambiguates the package name.
>>> How about this for a policy:
>>> Package should be named as python-<setup.py `name` field>. If this is
>>> different from PyPI name (e.g.
>>> gogs_client as setup.py name, gogs-client as pypi name), then
>>> python-<PyPI name> should also be
>>> provided.
>>
>> Sounds good to me.
>>
>> Tom
> 
> 


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]
-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]