python packaging

[Jacek Konieczny]

On 2016-06-20 14:58, Elan Ruusamäe wrote:
> so, what way we should do the package naming?
>
> 1. egg name

That probably makes most sense today.

> 2. python module name [*]

That was decided before python eggs started being a thing. And that is 
how most of our packages are named now.

> 3. upstream tarball name
> 4. pld own convention

Both would give quite random results.

> [*] this is said to be the recommendation in template-specs

As it was decided long time ago, when it made sense.

> reality is that we have no consistency,

Some people seem to don't care at all. :-(
I am afraid, that whatever scheme we decide on, people will still commit 
crap. That is minority, but quite annoying.

> the package naming is from any of the four choices:
>
> the results vary from name letter cases (South vs south), separators (_
> vs -), name itself (picklefield module vs django_picklefield egg)

I hate this too. Especially when I find out a package exists after I 
package it again under a more standard name.

I think the best naming scheme would be python-${egg_name} now. But that 
is inconsistent with what we used to do. Renaming all the affected 
packages might be quite problematic.

Anything that doesn't match 1. or 2. should be renamed, but doing it 
after it went to th causes compatibility problems.

Jacek