On 18.08.2017 16:26, jan matejek wrote:
On 18.8.2017 16:20, Sebastian wrote:
On 08/18/2017 03:34 PM, jan matejek wrote:
Then there is the more specific naming policy for python packages which says the package must be called "python-$pypiname". It does not mention any exceptions (at least I haven't found any). In the above example the pypi's name is "gogs-client" and results in
The issue with your request is the discrepancy in the package's PyPI identifier. Upstream seems to think the name should be "gogs_client", but uploaded as "gogs-client", except the filename is still "gogs_client".
Upstream sometimes does that, and PyPI does nothing to stop them. Such is the world we live in.
As I wrote on the request, "_" and "-" are treated the same by PyPI ecosystem. "pip install gogs-client" and "pip install gogs_client" are identical. So IMHO using "python-gogs-client" as the package name is equally correct as "python-gogs_client".
If both names are valid (the name in eg. the URL and the name of the archive), should the other name then be provided?
Yes please. That didn't occur to me but it is a good idea.
So we want to Provide now all combinations with - and _ ? Could that be done automatically instead of adding all the Provides manually to every spec file?