On Fri, 04 Oct 2024 at 09:41:45 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > The bug report doesn’t explain exactly what aspect doesn’t > comply with the policy, but I assume it comes down to python3-trezor > installing to the following two directories, which have disparate names: > > /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/trezorlib/ > /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/trezor-0.13.9.egg-info/
Yes, it's somewhat common for the PyPI distribution name (trezor) and the importable module name (trezorlib) to be different. Unfortunately, both of those names are part of the API, and both have a reasonable claim to be "the" name of the library. https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/index.html#module-package-names says that the Debian Python team's policy is that the name that matters, for the purposes of our naming convention, is the name that you can `import`. python3-dbus and python3-xdg are some good examples of packages where the name you can `import` does not match the PyPI name, and the Debian package has been named according to our policy. This is similar to Debian's policy that the package containing a C/C++ library with a SONAME like "libgtk-4.so.1" should be "libgtk-4-1", even if the upstream developer would usually refer to it as something more like "GTK 4" or "gtk-4". Like the C/C++ library naming policy, this is a "should" and not a "must", so the decision for you to make as maintainer is whether the disruption of renaming to python3-trezorlib is sufficient to justify this package being an exception to the policy. If yes, mark the bug wontfix; if no, do the rename. (Compare with the C library "libsdl1.2debian", which should have been named libsdl-1.2-0 according to the systematic naming scheme in Policy, but wasn't, and we have kept its original name because the disruption that would be caused by renaming it seems greater than the benefit.) smcv
