python cnotmuch -> notmuch

python cnotmuch -> notmuch

[Sebastian Spaeth]

I believe that Carl pursues an evil plan of converting unsuspicious
mercurial users to git. At least that is what I suspect when he asked
whether it would make sense to get my cnotmuch python bindings into the notmuch
repo. :-)

Well, here it is, I converted my good old bitbucket hg repo to git, so
he can merge it (but thanks to the good old hg-git plugin I did not even
had to leave mercurial once, so the evil part of his plan failed
miserably :-))

http://github.com/spaetz/python-notmuch
respectively: git@github.com:spaetz/python-notmuch.git

Carl, I did not update the .hgignore to be .gitignore yet. I recommend
to just ignore *.pyc and the docs/html dir (just have a look at
.hgignore). As for the directory to stick this in, I don't care. Does
"bindings/python" make sense? Also, I have a debian dir to produce a
.deb package, not sure what to do with that.

I took the opportunity to change the semantics and did away with the "c"
in cnotmuch. Carl felt comfortable to just name it 'notmuch' and I am
happy to oblige. So rather than the ugly 

"from cnotmuch.notmuch import Database" 

this works not simply with 

"import notmuch" or "from notmuch import Database".

I'll still need to think about how I should handle the transition on the
python package page, but fortunately the current user base of cnotmuch
is still not too big :-).

Sorry for the long blurb, I know I should not distract Carl from merging
David's patches... :-)

Sebastian

Re: python cnotmuch -> notmuch

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1324 bytes --]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:50:13 +0200, "Sebastian Spaeth" <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
> I believe that Carl pursues an evil plan of converting unsuspicious
> mercurial users to git. At least that is what I suspect when he asked
> whether it would make sense to get my cnotmuch python bindings into the notmuch
> repo. :-)

Or perhaps Sebastian has an evil plan to dominate the "git shortlog"
output for the next release cycle.

> Carl, I did not update the .hgignore to be .gitignore yet. I recommend
> to just ignore *.pyc and the docs/html dir (just have a look at
> .hgignore). As for the directory to stick this in, I don't care. Does
> "bindings/python" make sense? Also, I have a debian dir to produce a
> .deb package, not sure what to do with that.

I went ahead with "bindings/python" yes.

For the Debian package, if we can do get "make install" to do the right
thing then it's a pretty easy thing to add a section to debian/control
and add a could of <package>.install files. If there are any other
python-specific packaging tasks we can move them from
bindings/python/debian to debian as well.

Though that brings up the question of what to name the Debian package
for these bindings. A quick "apt-cache search python" suggests that
python-notmuch might not be a crazy name.

What do you think, Sebastian?

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: python cnotmuch -> notmuch

[Servilio Afre Puentes]

On 21 April 2010 20:38, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 21:50:13 +0200, "Sebastian Spaeth" <Sebastian@SSpaeth.de> wrote:
[...]
> Though that brings up the question of what to name the Debian package
> for these bindings. A quick "apt-cache search python" suggests that
> python-notmuch might not be a crazy name.

And looks like the one recommended by the Debian Python Policy:

http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names

Servilio

Re: python cnotmuch -> notmuch

[Sebastian Spaeth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 79 bytes --]

My "reply-to-sender-only" works too well, resending this to the notmuch list.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 893 bytes --]


Oh NOOO, my evil plan is disclosed!

Seriously, thanks for taking that in, I'm glad it is useful. I find the
python bindings incredibly useful for quick prototyping or scripting (4
lines of code to output all email addresses that were ever sent from my
colleagues and stuff like that).
 
> I went ahead with "bindings/python" yes.
Sounds good.

> python-notmuch might not be a crazy name.

As for debian pacakging, I had a hard time to get a package together at
all (the Ubuntu python packaging page was much more helpful than the
Debian one, I have to say), so I would appreciate the help of someone
more experienced  in packaging to help us out here. As for
"python-notmuch" this is what I would have proposed as well.

Sebastian