Re: Naming scheme for Python packages

[Andreas Enge]

On Wed, Sep 04, 2013 at 10:51:17PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> However, I don’t think that scheme should be followed for variable
> names: it’s tedious to type, and Guile offers mechanisms to
> select/rename bindings imported from other bindings.
> Thus I would do:
>   (define pytz
>     (package
>       (name "python-pytz")
>       ...))

Well, we also have the policy so far that variable name = name field.
I find it consistent, and do not mind typing a few "python-" more or less.
It is not what makes packaging quite a bit of work...

But if others agree, this can still be changed quite easily.

You may wish to suggest a patch to the "packaging guidelines" in the documen-
tation; the ease or lack of ease to formulate a coherent guideline could be
an indication on what we should do...

Andreas