Open Stack

Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2014-06-13 03:04:07 -0700:
> On 06/13/2014 06:53 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
> > Hi Thomas,
> > 
> > I felt a couple sentences here were reasonable to add (more than “don’t
> > care” from before). 
> > 
> > I understand your concerns here, and I totally get what you’re driving
> > at, but in the packaging world wouldn’t this make sense to call it
> > "python-bash8"?
> 
> Yes, this is what will happen.
> 
> > Now the binary, I can agree (for reasons outlined)
> > should probably not be named ‘bash8’, but the name of the “command”
> > could be separate from the packaging / project name.
> 
> If upstream chooses /usr/bin/bash8, I'll have to follow. I don't want to
> carry patches which I'd have to maintain.
> 
> > Beyond a relatively minor change to the resulting “binary” name [sure
> > bash-tidy, or whatever we come up with], is there something more that
> > really is awful (rather than just silly) about the naming?
> 
> Renaming python-bash8 into something else is not possible, because the
> Debian standard is to use, as Debian name, what is used for the import.
> So if we have "import xyz", then the package will be python-xyz.
> 

For python _libraries_ yes.

But for a utility which happens to import that library, naming the
package after what upstream calls it is a de facto standard.