Changes in Guidelines Connected to "Python 3 as Default" Change

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----

> On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Nick Coghlan < ncoghlan at gmail.com > wrote:

> > > - (This is not really related to the switch, but more of a general
> > > remark)
> > > In [4], it says that "python 3 version of the executable gains a python3-
> > > prefix". This is IMO bad, since upstream projects tend to name the
> > > versioned binaries "foo-3.4, foo-3" or "foo3.4, foo3". We should accept
> > > one of these - I'm not really certain which one of them. I tried to
> > > discuss this several times on distutils-sig mailing list, but without
> > > reaching a consensus. Either way, prefixing with python3- doesn't make
> > > sense to me, because it's not similar to any upstream way and you don't
> > > find the binaries under their names using tab completion (e.g. foo<tab>
> > > doesn't tell you about python3-foo).
> 

> > Agreed.
> 

> > CPython & pip use the "foo3.4, foo3" convention, so that seems enough of a
> > reason to use that convention by default. We may want a "unless upstream
> > does it differently" caveat though.
> 
> It doesn't really matter right now but long term I think python packaging
> should just natively support commands like this. Either just as a matter of
> fact, opt in, or by allowing templated command names. Either way I think the
> upstream tooling should and likely will follow python's lead for how these
> are written.

Agreed. However from my experience, most upstreams use the foo-3.4 (i.e. with dash) way. I have to admit I like using the dash more. One more reason for this is that if we start building stacks for other interpreters, e.g. pypy, it would be good to have foo-pypy3 instead of foopypy3 (or foo3pypy? :)). 

-- 
Regards, 
Slavek Kabrda 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/python-devel/attachments/20141203/603495d1/attachment.html>