[Fedora-packaging] naming package as a library or tool

Toshio Kuratomi a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Aug 20 12:56:38 UTC 2015

On Aug 19, 2015 8:10 PM, "Parag Nemade" <panemade at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:29 AM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 01:22:59PM +0530, Parag Nemade wrote:
> >>    Sometimes I get confused how to handle naming of a package where
> >> package itself provides a nodejs or python library and wrapper/tool to
> >> use that library.
> >>    We have guidelines where it says if source is library from npmjs or
> >> pypi then we should prefix package with nodejs or python but how to
> >> name when source contains both?
> >>    What gets precedence? name them with prefixes or just by tool name
> >> or library name?
> >
> > Subpackages are definitely the answer here. There are still several
> > rational options. If the tool is primary, making the main package be
> > the upstream name ("foobar") makes sense, with subpackage for the
> > library ("python3-foobar", "foobar-libs"). If the library is primary,
> > though, you might want to go for "libfoobar" and "libfoobar-tools".
> Thanks. I have too followed same thing for some of my packages
> recently. Here what I want is, is this written somewhere? Just to give
> reference to package submitter if he want some official source during
> package review.
> I can't find such explanation in python packaging guidelines wiki page
> and also not in
> page.
> Can some one if possible add this naming information there? Or do I
> need to file a ticket on fpc for this?
In current guidelines, libraries and applications are allowed to mix in the
same (sub)package.  For c packages, we've slowly gotten away from this
practice due to multi lib.  But no such technical reason for demanding
packages split binary and library exists for python, ruby, Perl, nodejs,

It's (a little) more work to split every package that ships a small script
along with its library.  So traditionally we don't make that demand..  if
the application is important enough and the library is just implementation
detail then we have the package ship everything under a non-prefixed name.
If the library is most important and the script is along the lines of a
usable example of what you can do with the library then we use the python-
prefix.  We don't really talk about the case where application and library
are of equal value but packagers are expected to use good judgement and
probably should use subpackages to address the situation.

There is a lot of grey area between these three points of interest.  I
wouldn't be opposed to the guidelines being updated to either eliminate
some of them  (for instance, libraries and "binaries" must always be in
separate subordinates) or for a more comprehensive description of when to
use each style of packaging.  I'd only ask that this be applied to all
packages, not just python and nodejs.  It really is a style issue that
should apply to similar packages in all languages.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/attachments/20150820/f6227619/attachment.html>

More information about the packaging mailing list