Open Stack

On 28 February 2013 08:00, Thomas Goirand <zigo at debian.org> wrote:
> On 02/28/2013 01:02 PM, Eric Windisch wrote:
>> It turns out that oslo-config and Debian packaging create at least
>> a little bit of a mess, as I've discovered when attempting to do so.
>>
>> Packages depending on oslo-config will depend on 'oslo.config' in
>> their setup.py. Debian packaging will, at least by default, map
>> this to 'python-oslo.config'.
>
> This could be overwritten. When it comes to Debian packages, I have put
> manually python-oslo-config as (build-)dependency. With g3, I haven't
> seen any problem.
>
> Are you here talking about *Ubuntu* packages, and not *Debian*?
>
>> However, the sdist tarball and the
>> directory said tarball creates are, well, "oslo-config", not
>> "oslo.config".
>
> Debian doesn't use tarballs, but git tags for the packaging.
>
>> This means that the packages we create for
>> 'oslo-config' will be called 'python-oslo-config'.
>
> Yeah, that's the Debian policy for python... I don't see why having
> python- in front is a problem. dh_python2 doesn't really care.
<SNIP>

In Ubuntu, we also currently have it overridden in debian/pydist-overrides.

However, we discussed this last week with fellow Ubuntu developers, as
the Ubuntu package was called python-oslo-config.  We are planning to
re-name it to python-oslo.config on the next upload to reflect the
convention that has been formed.

Prior art is things such as, "python-zope.interfaces"

Barry Warsaw said he was going to raise a bug to have this clarified
in the Debian python packaging policy manual[1] shortly.

[0] http://irclogs.ubuntu.com/2013/02/22/%23ubuntu-devel.html#t14:18
[1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names

HTH

-- 
Kind Regards,

Dave Walker <Dave.Walker at canonical.com>
Engineering Manager,
Ubuntu Server