That was my read too. Can this be reverted? I don't think this merge was the right call, thanks.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 11:43 AM xiota <a...@mentalfossa.com> wrote: > python-docformatter seems to qualify as "a program that is strongly > coupled to the Python ecosystem". > > From ArchWiki Python package guidelines [a]: > > Python 3 library modules, use python-modulename. Also use the prefix if > the package provides a program that is strongly coupled to the Python > ecosystem (e.g. pip or tox). For other applications, use only the program > name. > > [a]: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Python_package_guidelines > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 8:12 AM Guillaume Horel <guillaume.ho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> This seems like a pretty bogus reason. There are plenty of python >> packages which have a bin entry point with a python- name. Is that an >> official arch policy? This package is mostly used as a library. >> >> On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 1:03 AM <not...@aur.archlinux.org> wrote: >> >>> Xeonacid [1] filed a request to merge python-docformatter [2] into >>> docformatter [3]: >>> >>> The package has a binary at `/usr/bin/docformatter`, it should not >>> have a `python-` prefix which is for pure library. >>> >>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Xeonacid/ >>> [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/python-docformatter/ >>> [3] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/docformatter/ >> >>
