It seems that none cares after all, huh? But I still do want to do it as right as it can possibly be, mostly because I now need flake8 for both python 2 and 3. So if nobody complains, I'll go with my initial thought (see my previous post here) sometime near the end of the week.
On 29 November 2012 07:09, Karol Woźniak <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I'm back for a moment, so, as a maintainer of flake8 package, I guess > I should write something here > (and hope gmail won't mess the nesting. I still don't know how it works > here...). > > Coming to think about it, there IS a library in flake8. I mean, most > people will just run the exec and be fine, but if you really need, you can > import things from flake8 package and run it from inside the interpreter > (which is what the exec does, anyway). > That said, I think the closest follow up for us are python(2)-pip packages > from [extra]. So, while I was a bit against it, I now think the best thing > we can do is to pick up the python(2)-* convention. > > That still leaves one issue, though. To allow the packages to coexist, we > should rename python2 exec to "flake82". Maybe it's just me, but it looks > weird. And besides that, I don't know how other apps (e.g. syntax checking > plugins for editors) using flake8 will behave. Syntastic has a way to > change the exec used for checking, but I don't know about the others. > > > Xyne wrote: > > >While we're on the subject, can someone please explain to me again why we > use > >"python-" and not "python3-" for Python 3 libraries? > > This way, if py4 ever comes out, this will make us a new bunch of mess and > a whole lot of work to do again. Isn't that great? > > -- > Karol "Kenji Takahashi" Woźniak <http://kenji.sx> > -- Pozdrawiam, Karol Woźniak
