GSoC Proposal

[KARAN SHETH]

Hey,

Just to see how many ports will we have to rename if we take on this
path I ran a quick script and following were the results:

PyPI Name        Macports Name        Number

package             package                   10

package             py-package               769

package             py-pypackage            1

pypackage         py-package                14

--------------          unclassified                30

Total PyPI Ports = 824

So according to this results it would be best to name all the PyPI as
py-package.

Note: The script might be a bit off.

Thanks,
Karan Sheth

On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:10 PM Mojca Miklavec <mojca at macports.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 at 01:33, KARAN SHETH wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is it possible to rename the existing Python ports as per PYPI so that issues of duplicates ports can be avoided?
>
>
> Yes, I would be in favour of coming up with an "algorithm" for naming all python ports and then stick to it. Ports which don't follow the convention could and should be renamed.
>
> Pypi packages might be called "foo", "pyfoo", "py-foo", ... and we just need to agree on how to do the name transformation in some well-defined way. Some maintainers changed "pyfoo" into "py-foo", others into "py-pyfoo". This needs to be unified.
>
> Mojca
>

-- 

 <https://www.somaiya.edu>        <http://www.somaiya-ayurvihar.org>  
<http://nareshwadi.org>  <http://somaiya.com>  <http://www.helpachild.in>  
<http://nareshwadi.org>