From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andreas Enge Subject: Re: Naming scheme for Python packages Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 23:08:36 +0200 Message-ID: <20130904210836.GB8425@debian> References: <87li3c8g56.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52342) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHKJr-0002jS-3b for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:09:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VHKJj-0004ck-Li for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 04 Sep 2013 17:08:55 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87li3c8g56.fsf@gnu.org> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Ludovic =?iso-8859-15?Q?Court=E8s?= Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > However, I don’t think that scheme should be followed for variable > names: it’s tedious to type, and Guile offers mechanisms to > select/rename bindings imported from other bindings. > Thus I would do: > (define pytz > (package > (name "python-pytz") > ...)) Well, we also have the policy so far that variable name = name field. I find it consistent, and do not mind typing a few "python-" more or less. It is not what makes packaging quite a bit of work... But if others agree, this can still be changed quite easily. You may wish to suggest a patch to the "packaging guidelines" in the documen- tation; the ease or lack of ease to formulate a coherent guideline could be an indication on what we should do... Andreas