[Sugar-devel] Naming of "sugar", the Sugar Shell

[Jonas Smedegaard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 02:24:16PM +0100, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
>Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 11:08:11AM +0200, Morgan Collett wrote:
>>> Just want to mention, as far as packaging names go, the debian 
>>> binary package names for the following components are:
>>> * sugar-base: python-sugar
>>> * sugar-toolkit: python-sugar-toolkit
>>> * sugar-datastore: python-olpc-datastore (which should be renamed 
>>> python-sugar-datastore)
>> 
>> I have seen this claim before (from you?). Why do you believe that 
>> the name should be different? Current name reflects naming of the 
>> Python module it contains, to follow Debian Python Policy.
>
>Where did Morgan say that "python-" should be taken off?

Nowhere. Neither did I say so.


>The change he prposes is s/olpc/sugar/, which I can hardly imagine as
>a violation of any Debian Uppercase Policy.

Indeed that was his proposal.

I talk about a Python Policy, not an uppercase one: The (main) Python 
module currently contained in sugar-datastore is "olpc.datastore", not 
"sugar.datastore".

It also contains another Python module "secore" that I until now have 
stuffed into that same binary package as the "olpc.datastore" one.


>>> I vote for sugar-shell as the component name, because the distros 
>>> should be able to keep that name, and it's more obvious what the 
>>> component does.
>> 
>> According to Debian Perl Policy, the binary package for the part of 
>> the upstream "sugar" package that contains jarabe should be named 
>> "python-jarabe".
>
>I think the proposal was to rename the *upstream* module called just 
>"sugar" to "sugar-shell".  At least, this is what was discussed on 
>#sugar.

You mean "sugar.shell" or you are not talking about Python module here?

(seems you are talking about source package names, not Python modules).


>> Other parts of same source package could possibly either be stuffed 
>> into same binary package package or into its own, named either 
>> "sugar" as now, or sugar-shell or sugar-jarabe reflecting an eventual 
>> upstream rename of same package (else I see no reason to change name 
>> for Debian).
>
>Afaik, jarabe has not been shipped as an independent module and there
>are no plans to do so.
>
>Or does that mean that you have to split it out to a separate package
>in order to comply with this D.P.P.?

It means that _if_ I split it out as a Python library package (which has 
the benefit of then being smart about upgrades from one version of 
Python to another without needing any repackaging) then I must follow 
naming rules reflecting the contained Python module, disregarding the 
upstram source package name.


  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmAfN0ACgkQn7DbMsAkQLjDcQCfRYOE7x6J84wgo77JiOh9cWXV
FhwAoJe7NT2E3t+AOTuy8xxxZuxMREPL
=PDWU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----