On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:19:46PM +0000, Thorsten Alteholz wrote: > On Mon, 25 Nov 2024, Julian Gilbey wrote: > > I certainly prefer the latter option, being less confusing, but now > > that it's not an ftpmaster policy, you may prefer to not get > > involved. > > Jonas has a valid argument about not polluting the namespace and I tend to > agree with him. But as this has nothing to do with any ftpmaster policy but > is a decision of the Python team, I leave you free to decide what you like > best.
While I would have preferred python-python-multipart (source) → python3-python-multipart (binary) and python-multipart (source) → python3-multipart (binary) - as Julian says, we usually prefix "python-" to source package names nowadays and it avoids awkward conflicts with packages from other language ecosystems - I think we can live with python-multipart (source) → python3-python-multipart (binary) and multipart (source) → python3-multipart (binary) as Sandro proposes and the first part of which is currently in NEW. (Failing that, there are more awkward possibilities such as python-defnull-multipart, including the author's GitHub username. But on balance that seems worse.) -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwat...@debian.org]
