subscription-manager & related packages naming


I am working on a PR to get subscription-manager and related packages
packaged for python 3 for Fedora (see
<a href="" title=""></a>), and we're
aware we've made some naming decisions in the past that aren't quite up
to the python package naming conventions. Anyways, I was wondering if
anyone would be available to take a quick look at the spec file in the
PR and provide feedback (we do our packaging work in the upstream repo,
otherwise I'd just open a normal review request)...

Some context:

Our overall application has several python modules: rct, rhsm,
rhsm_debug, rhsmlib, subscription_manager, and right now it's packaged
as such:

* package subscription-manager contains all the bin scripts, some
config files, and all python modules except rhsm
* package python3-subscription-manager-rhsm or
subscription-manager-rhsm (depending on whether using python2 or
python3) contains the rhsm python module (also used by virt-who)
* package subscription-manager gui lays down the
subscription_manager:gui module by itself (and there are a couple
other packages that do similarly)...

Right now, I'm thinking what must be done is: rename
subscription-manager-rhsm to python-rhsm or python2-rhsm or python3-rhsm
per the python naming guidelines.

Some specific questions I have are:

 - Anything else that must/should be done to follow the guidelines?

 - Since subscription-manager is an application, and the python modules
it uses are not  intended for consumption by users, does the
subscription-manager package itself not fall under the general python
package naming guidelines?

 - Any good examples of multi-module python applications that are
packaged 100% (or 99%) correctly?

Thanks in advance for any advice,

Kevin Howell


Re: subscription-manager & related packages naming

By =?ISO-8859-2?Q?... at 01/11/2018 - 08:49

Dne 10.1.2018 v 21:47 Kevin Howell napsal(a):
Rename the package to python-rhsm which does not have main package and only two subpackages: python{2,3}-rhsm

Spacewalk packages. It is quite complex, so there are lot of compromises, but it is good. And related to RHSM.