Re: Binary naming conventions for projects written in python

[Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

Hello Aleksej!

Aleksej Lebedev writes:
> [...]
> 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?
>

I have tried to bring this up recently on tech-pkg@ but AFAIK there
is no convention:

 <https://mail-index.NetBSD.org/tech-pkg/2019/01/18/msg020729.html>

> If yes, should these packages provide symlinks conan -> conan2 -> 
> conan2.7, etc?
> [...]

This is automatically handled by pkgtools/pkg_alternatives if
installed, so, for example for wip/conan, after populating
wip/conan/ALTERNATIVES with:

 bin/conan @PREFIX@/bin/conan-${PYVERSSUFFIX}
 bin/conan_build_info @PREFIX@/bin/conan_build_info-${PYVERSSUFFIX}
 bin/conan_server @PREFIX@/bin/conan_server-${PYVERSSUFFIX}

...and rebuilding with it pkg_alternatives installed,
corresponding wrappers will be created as needed.