* Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org>, 2012-01-23, 13:30:
python-futures for the package name, surely, no?
do you mean the binary? that will be python-concurrent.futures, as per
python policy; for the source I'm open to comments
I was thinking of the source. If you're building a single binary
package from the source package, it's usually better for everyone's
level of confusion to just name the source package the same as the
binary package. But my main point was just to avoid having a source
package named "futures"; that's a little general. :)
I normally advocate using upstream name for source package name (even if
it's a single binary package and the binary package would have a
different name due to $LANGUAGE policy). However, in this case I agree
that "futures" would be too generic.
--
Jakub Wilk
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120123214454.ga7...@jwilk.net
