Open Stack

On Fri, 2013-03-01 at 12:35 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 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?

An example of another project not using that format is PasteDeploy - it
installs into the 'paste' namespace package and yet isn't called
'paste.deploy'

If it was straightforward, I'd write a script to look at all the
namespace packages on pypi and compare.

Cheers,
Mark.