Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:40:02 -0800 (PST)
From:      Johann Visagie <johann@egenetics.com>
To:        freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/23326: New port:  misc/pybliograher
Message-ID:  <200012061440.eB6Ee2P48702@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/23326; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Johann Visagie <johann@egenetics.com>
To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com>,
	FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Cc: tg@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/23326: New port:  misc/pybliograher
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 16:36:11 +0200

 Jacques A. Vidrine on 2000-12-06 (Wed) at 08:06:37 -0600:
 > 
 > PKGNAMEPREFIX=	py-
 
 These days it's also possible to set PKGNAMEPREFIX to ${PYTHON_PKGNAMEPREFIX}
 to differentiate amongst ports which have hard dependencies on different
 Python versions.  :-)
 
 > Please.  This makes the package name py-pybliographer, which does
 > admittedly look funny, but follows our convention for Python modules
 > (py-PackageName).
 
 Looking through the ports tree, the very unofficial standard for Python ports
 *seems* to be to use the py- prefix for ports which install Python modules
 (libraries, packages), whereas standaone applications which just happen to be
 written in Python don't have the prefix.  (gadfly, glimmer, sketch, pmail,
 mailman, grail, pygmy, zope(!), etc., etc.)
 
 I've checked this before with tg (who maintains the Python port itself) and
 he concurred.
 
 That said, I agree that the boundary between a module and an application may
 be fuzzy (esp. where Python is concerned), so I'm willing to accept guidance
 in this...  :-)
 
 -- Johann
 


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200012061440.eB6Ee2P48702>