[csw-pkgsubmissions] newpkgs py_webpy

[Philip Brown]

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
<maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> No dia 20 de Janeiro de 2011 17:36, Philip Brown <phil at opencsw.org> escreveu:
>>
>> So here I'm asking the maintainer (or more regular users of this
>> framework, if the maintainer isnt a regular user of it) if that naming
>> makes more sense. Is it reasonable that some random outside user of
>> the framework, new to csw, is going to expect
>>
>> [install] webpy
>>
>> to work?
>>
>> Given that the thing is homed at "webpy.org", it seems like the answer
>> would be "yes".
>
> According to what we agreed on, the presence of py_ prefix depends on
> whether it's a library or a standalone program.
>
> http://wiki.opencsw.org/python-packages-naming
>
> webpy is a library, not a standalone program, so unless we change the
> policy, the catalogname is py_webpy.


Hm. Okay, that's what the policy currently says. We didnt really do a
very deep analysis on this sort of aspect of the policy though, that I
recall.
(well known, non-standalone python thing).
Maybe its time to look at this more explicitly.

ls py* |egrep -v py_|awk -F- '{print $1}'


in the main dir, gives a fair number of things that might be in this category.

pychecker
pyclearsilver
pydes
pydocutils
pyeyed3
pygobject
pygtk
pylint
pymxbase
pymysql
pyorbit
pypgsql
pysetuptools
pysqlite
pysqlite2
pysvn
pythonsvn
pyxml
pyyaml
pyzor

Some of those, I think are good candiates for "should be renamed to py_xxx".
Some, I have no idea of.

As the python maintainer, is it your stance that ALL of these should
be renamed to py_xxx?

I would ask you to make your decision not merely on "yes because thats
what the policy says now", but, "is that what is going to make the
most sense to our users"?
I would also ask you to carefully consider each one as an individual,
rather than just making a blanket decision without careful inspection.