[Pkg-corba-devel] Suggesting omniidl4-python
floris.bruynooghe at gmail.com
Wed Dec 19 23:51:45 UTC 2007
On Wed, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:06:17PM +0100, Thomas Girard wrote:
> Le jeudi 13 décembre 2007 à 22:15 +0000, Floris Bruynooghe a écrit :
> > python-omniorb2 Recommends: python-omniorb2-omg
> agreed. But it should probably be renamed to python-omniorb3. (And that
> means we need to ensure the transition works.) Or to python-omniorb to
> avoid another renaming later? I'll have a look at the python policy to
> see if this topic is covered.
I did wonder about the name and almost sent an email about it but then
decided to leave it. But maybe we should change them.
Python Policy section 2.2 says the bit after the `-' should be the
same thing as you type after "import". That means the package name
would be python-omniORB, but the Debian Policy only allows lowercase
letters so it would be python-omniorb. So if we decide to change it
we should change it to this I think. If the API changes incompatibly
the python (import) name should change (new module) and that would
change the package name. Quite why it had the major version number in
it originally I'm not sure, AFAIK there was never a python-omniorb
package in Debian.
The naming of python-omniorb2-omg is a little trickier, since it
provides the CORBA, CosNaming and PortableServer modules. So while
not strictly following the policy python-omniorb-omg is probably not
bad, it shows it enhances the python-omniorb package.
> (Unrelated: in python-omniorb2 2.6-3.3 there are Python files for COS
> services; I wonder if they should rather be in python-omniorb-omg.)
I don't think so, the COS modules are actual functionality that are an
integral part of omniORBpy, withouth it much won't work. The modules
inside the -omg package only provides a few standards compliant
wrappers/entry points to omniORBpy.
Debian GNU/Linux -- The Power of Freedom
www.debian.org | www.gnu.org | www.kernel.org
More information about the Pkg-corba-devel