Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=706705
--- Comment #4 from Felipe Contreras felipe.contreras@gmail.com 2011-06-01 06:32:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #1)
So the package (and the specfile) should be named python-libmtag, I realize this contradicts what upstream does, but Fedora names all python modules this way for consistency
Are you sure? There are *a lot* of packages this way:
zinnia-python xapian-bindings-python vtk-python vips-python vigra-python util-vserver-python thunarx-pythonx telepathy-farsight-python stfl-python spice-gtk-python
I could go on.
These are packages where the python bindings are build from the same sources tarbal as the main package, so they follow the usual <main-packagename>-<sub-package-name> convention, however these are the exception if you do: yum list 'python-*' you will find many many more named that wau.
Why would that matter? It certainly doesn't make any different to the end-user how the package was created.
What if I put the bindings inside libmtag, as I actually have been thinking on doing, would I be entitled to name the package libmtag-python then? I don't think that makes sense.
Plus, it's actually not the case on xapian-bindings, thunarx-python, and even gstreamer-python (which is actually mentioned as an example) (and probably others).
If I go to the cached page I even see these as examples:
- gstreamer-python
- gnome-python2
- rpm-python
My feeling is that this is not a strong requirement, if it was, there should be a bug report to rename packages such as gstreamer-python, and it should be take out of the examples.
And if there is indeed such a rule that in-package bindings can be named $NAME-python, it should be mentioned in the documentation. More likely, these packages have to be renamed as well.