On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:43:16 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
Trial-and-error guessing of package names isn't practical. Searching manually in possibly alphabetically sorted lists of thousands of packages isn't practical either.
"Isn't practical" is a perfect reason to improve it with a new python package naming proposal.
Check out the other replies. It would be much more of a reason to be as close as possible to upstream names, so documentation on the web would work, too, and users would get some result without guessing package names. Although I think running package searches is superior.
http://www.pygtk.org/ | | PyGTK for Linux | | PyGTK is included in most Linux distributions (including Debian, Fedora, | Ubuntu, Opensuse, Gentoo, Mandrake, Redhat, SUSE...);
Yet "yum install PyGTK" would not work. Introducing lots of prefixes or interpreter version identifiers is unlikely to end up with a clean/clear solution.
%python_provides PyGTK $interpreter would help here, which provides the PyGTK package from the correct $interpreter-pygtk package. This way, you know for sure, where to search for in bugzilla, such as python2-pygtk (or python2-PyGTK) and the yum install command would work as expected from the web. I do consider this a "clean solution".
Greetings, Tom