On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 02:13:36PM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> I reply in two e-mails.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:19:17AM +0200, Efraim Flashner wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 07:49:56AM +0100, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> > > Shall I rename python-zope-* to python-zope.*?
> > > 
> > 
> > For new packages I would use whatever upstream uses in regard to '-' vs
> > '.'. For existing ones, how many are there? It might be best to just
> > leave them as-is rather than go through the dance of deprecating the old
> > packages.
> > 
> > […]
> > > 
> > > However the zope ones have already been added since 2fc5f186801, but
> > > with a hyphen instead of a dot.  Which one is correct?  Shall I rename
> > > python-zope-* to python-zope.*?  Or shall I correct the pypi importer?
> > > Ignore it?
> > > 
> > 
> > 'guix package -A python-zope' lists them all as having a dash, I'd just
> > go ahead and make them all dashes.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the dance will eventually pay off.  I see you have
> repackaged many zope packages and at least some existing zope packages
> are out of date.
> 

Ooops, I didn't even notice that some of them were just repackaged.
python-zope-event is already at 4.4, I packaged 4.4 again as
python-zope.event. I'll have to go through and see about merging them.
In any event, an independent repackaging is at least a useful way to
see if the package could use any changes.

-- 
Efraim Flashner   <efraim@flashner.co.il>   אפרים פלשנר
GPG key = A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D  14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted