#685 Enforce new naming scheme for Python binary packages
Closed: accepted 2 years ago Opened 2 years ago by ishcherb.

Link to the draft

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ishcherb/NamingPythonPackages

Link to diff

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AIshcherb%2FNamingPythonPackages&diff=492806&oldid=492598

Explanation

The current packaging guidelines encourage packagers to use the new naming scheme for new Python packages. However it is not required for existing Fedora packages, which use the outdated naming rules. We would like to enforce this policy at least for binary packages, as we are preparing to switch python to mean Python 3 in Fedora.

This was referenced on the packaging mailing list providing technical details:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3OP5HSPLVCPIYUQOKJDDFS3AFC4ZM7C4/

The list of affected packages may be viewed here:
http://fedora.portingdb.xyz/namingpolicy/#name-misnamed

The changes needed to migrate to the new naming scheme are also documented here:
https://python-rpm-porting.readthedocs.io/en/latest/naming-scheme.html


I am OK with simply removing mention of the old naming scheme from the guidelines. It should be rare enough these days and we don't generally need to document all of the deviations from the guidelines that a packager might see when looking at a random package.

However, one important thing to note is that guideline changes aren't generally taken to be retroactive, because the packaging committee just doesn't have the manpower to fix up packages when guidelines change. That said, the "misnamed" python packages are already violating the guidelines and if someone wants to put forth an effort to fix those, I would say that you're entirely free to do so. If you want FPC's blessing, I'm certainly +1 to giving it.

In summary, I prefer the following approach: https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ATibbs%2Fpythonnaming&diff=current&oldid=492868

That is, completely remove the section on the old naming scheme, and use MUST for naming the binary packages. (And remove a long-standing typo in the process....)

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue assigned to tibbs

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

2 years ago

Thanks for looking into this issue.
I agree with your reasoning. Using MUST should be enough to enforce the policy so I am ok with going with your approach.

We discussed this at this weeks meeting (http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2017-05-18/fpc.2017-05-18-16.00.txt):

  • 685 Enforce new naming scheme for Python binary packages (geppetto,
    16:09:01)
  • ACTION: Enforce new naming scheme for Python binary packages (tibbs
    change) (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto, 16:35:12)
  • ACTION: Exemption from review, for affected python packages being
    changed with the help of Python SIG (+1:5, 0:0, -1:0) (geppetto,
    16:38:13)

Metadata Update from @james:
- Issue untagged with: meeting
- Issue tagged with: writeup

2 years ago

Announcement text:

The naming guidelines have been altered to indicate that python2 binary packages MUST be named starting with "python2-" and that python3 binary package MUST be named starting with "python3-". The section on the old naming conventions for python packages has been removed as it has not been acceptable for many releases now.

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue untagged with: writeup
- Issue tagged with: announce

2 years ago

Metadata Update from @tibbs:
- Issue untagged with: announce
- Issue close_status updated to: accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata