Hello protobuf-socket-rpc developers, I intend to package the Python version of protobuf-socket-rpc for Debian [1]. Unfortunatelly this is not possible as straightforward as I hoped because of some issues with the current Python code structure.
The first issue is the module name. The Debian project has a policy regarding Python module packaging [2] that recommends to use the module's import name to construct the actual package name. In your case this would lead to a package python-protobuf. This name, as you might have guessed, is already occupied by Google's protobuf Python code [3]. To fix this issue I suggest to rename your module to protobuf.socket.rpc. I worked on the necessary changes and added a working patch to your issue tracker [4]. I hope you consider this change to avoid name conflicts, not only with python-protobuf, which is more of a Debian policy issue, but with potential other protobuf extensions. It would be nice to have a upstream changelog in the source tarball, I filed an issue to add it too [5]. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602004 [2] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names [3] http://packages.debian.org/sid/python-protobuf [4] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-socket-rpc/issues/detail?id=17 [5] http://code.google.com/p/protobuf-socket-rpc/issues/detail?id=16 I also got the impression that the Python structure was a bit (too much) inspired by Maven's directory structure conventions, which is a good thing for Java projects but not as much for Python projects. If you are interested I would like to refactor the directory structure and setup.py to create a more pythonic package (including a working python setup.py test for running unit tests). Regards Jan Dittberner -- Jan Dittberner - Debian Developer GPG-key: 4096R/558FB8DD 2009-05-10 B2FF 1D95 CE8F 7A22 DF4C F09B A73E 0055 558F B8DD http://www.dittberner.info/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
