On 2019-04-03, 15:57 GMT, Todd Rme wrote:
The naming policy from a long time now is that all jupyter-related packages, which pretty much by definition includes ipython-related packages since ipython is part of the jupyter software ecoystem, have used the jupyter_ prefix. This was discussed on the mailing list [1] in 2015 and using this approach was the consensus. Further, since the split it has been the policy that all such packages go into devel:languages:python:jupyter.
Yes, these are long-standing packaging bugs and they should be fixed as soon as possible. Packaging policy says: # All Python module packages, whether pure Python or C-based, # should be called python-modulename. modulename should be the # name of this module on the Python Package Index. (and the same name includes capitalization, we do have python-PyOpenSSL package, not python-pyopenssl). I don't see any exception for jupyter modules anywhere, and if there was one, I would try to get rid of it as soon as possible. This is not about being anal retentive about keeping policies, but many tools and packaging macros expects that this policy is being followed, so we should follow it. Of course, when renaming packages standard Obsoletes/Provides rules should be followed, but then I hope the change should be rather simple (not sure we can go all the way to a sed script, but it should be pretty close, I hope).
Recently there was a move to rename one such package, python-jupyter_ipdb, to just python-ipdb [2], on the grounds that we "we should not rename upstream stuff", and further the new version was pushed into devel:languages:python instead of devel:languages:python:jupyter.
Move to d:l:p is wrong, but renaming to python-ipdb is correct as long as the PyPI name is ipdb and it is https://pypi.org/project/ipdb/ .
This is a massive change in both python package naming policy and repository polices, which if implemented consistently would require renaming and moving dozens of packages.
There were many more massive changes than renaming 69 packages (or so), and this should be a way less complicated than other currently ongoing changes which are truly massive (like switching on tests in all packages). And no, I don't care whether package is jupyter, ipython, or aws, the naming policy should be followed everywhere.
Considering how many packages this would affect,
69 give or take.
number of other python package families (like django).
As far as I know the only discrepancy in the Django universe is that we keep package Django1 around so it has incorrect from the policy point of view, but that's it as far as Django packages go. Any other issue? Best, Matěj -- https://matej.ceplovi.cz/blog/, Jabber: mcepl@ceplovi.cz GPG Finger: 3C76 A027 CA45 AD70 98B5 BC1D 7920 5802 880B C9D8 Every developer’s hunt for the best editor ends up with Vim, Emacs or a management position. -- Rolf Bjaanes