----- Original Message -----
On Dec 3, 2014, at 9:51 AM, Nick Coghlan < ncoghlan(a)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