Open Stack

On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 13:02 +0000, Daviey Walker wrote:
> 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"

Well, depends on what you mean "prior art"

It's prior art for a python project with a namespace package using the
$namespace.$submodule naming format i.e. in setup.py

  name="zope.interface"

It makes complete sense for debian/ubuntu packaging to call their
packages python-zope.interface

However, in this case, oslo has gone for the $namespace-$submodule
naming format i.e.

  name="oslo-config"

So, in this case, debian/ubuntu should stick with python-oslo-config.
There presumably isn't prior art for debian/ubuntu to use a different
name from the upstream package.

Now ... what I am open to is an argument that $namespace.$submodule is a
convention generally recommended for all python projects with a
namespace package. Is anyone arguing that, though?

Thanks,
Mark.