Re: Binary naming conventions for projects written in python

[maya%netbsd.org@localhost]

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 01:37:40PM +0100, Aleksej Lebedev wrote:
> Hi, everyone!
> 
> Is there a convention about how to name binaries provided by a python module
> package.
> The module itself get installed into ${PYSITELIB} which is something like
> ${LOCALBASE}/lib/python${PYPKGPREFIX}/site-packages so there are no
> conflicts
> for packages build with different values of PYTHON_VERSION_DEFAULT.
> 
> However some python modules provide binaries. For exmaple, I committed
> wip/py-distro
> and wip/conan recently, which provide binaries bin/distro and bin/conan (not
> really
> binaries, just tiny shell wrappers, but anyway).
> 
> What is the naming convention that allows to have both versions binaries
> from each
> of these packages? Should I follow python's scheme: conan2.7 + conan3.6 &
> distro2.7 + distro3.6?
> 
> If yes, should these packages provide symlinks conan -> conan2 -> conan2.7,
> etc?
> 
> Or maybe there is no convention yet?
> 
> -- 
> Aleksej Lebedev

First ask if anyone at all is interested in them co-existing in the 3.x
and 2.x versions. py-test is obviously yes, but py-distro maybe not.

we have also pkgtools/pkg_alternatives to choose a default.