Hi again, Le 03/03/2020 à 11:55, Drew Parsons a écrit :
>> Actually, it may be wise to choose names that >> >> a) are clearly private, so people know they should not start using >> explicitly h5py_serial or h5py_mpi; >> >> b) will not clash with anything upstream may adopt in the future, a >> bit like choosing a debian-specific soname for shared library. >> >> why not _debian_h5py_serial and _debian_h5py_mpi? >> > > > Actually I was thinking people could start using h5py_serial or > h5py_mpi, then they'd be sure of exactly what they're getting. > > But I can see your point. It wouldn't be so portable if users started > doing that. Yep, people can still use _debian_h5py_mpi to be sure of what they get, but it is clear to them that they enter non-portable territory. > If we want to present it as _debian*, then I think it would be tidier to > place these _debian dir underneath h5py. That layout could be even > better for upstream since they'd want to do likewise (_h5py_serial, > _h5py_mpi under h5py), if they take up this suggestion. > Yes, I kinda like h5py._debian.serial and h5py._debian.mpi. Looks tidy an future-proof. Regards, Thibaut.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
