Package naming policies about conda-forge.github.io HOT 46 CLOSED

Recently we named the module cobra as python-cobra in conda-forge. I am OK with that, but we should try to avoid confusion. At some point people will starting submitting <package>-python, <package>-py, py_<package>, etc.

We should add a rule to always disambiguate package names by adding the prefix python-. It is less damaging and clear.

from conda-forge.github.io.

Isn't it easier to teach users to use prefixes on everythin apart from real user apps (aka libsomething for native packages, python-something for pyhon packages than let users find out whether jq is the native package, the python lib or the r lib, depending who was first? IMO it should be jq the commandline app, libjq the library part and r-jq and python-jq the r and python packages which wrap libjq?

Edit:

lots of folks expect the conda package name to match what you import in python....(or at least the pypi name)

This is an expectation which has to change and probably will change if users use conda for other ecosystems.

from conda-forge.github.io.

It is true that prefixing is nice. I have generally been an advocate, but I'm also a pragmatist. We are hurting the user experience.

For instance, one person had there Anaconda install go totally broken because of this. If we want to pursue prefixing, we need to do it with a transition period in mind. This could be with metapackages that share the old name, leaving defaults packages with the same name, or something else people would like to contribute.

The most important point IMHO is we should not be spending precious cycles resolving issues that amount to us making a choice that does not accept the current state of affairs with defaults.

from conda-forge.github.io.

[BTW, it would be really great if conda had a way to submit the pip names and get conda names back...]

from conda-forge.github.io.

If they bundle the lib on pypi, then we should too. (pyproj is a good example of that -- proj is certainly useful outside of python but the author packages it in with the python bindings)

I don't agree necessarily. By necessity, if you package on PyPI (as a binary wheel) then you must bundle the lib dependencies as you have no other tool at your disposal. We do have a tool at our disposal to install non python dependencies, and should be using it IMO (otherwise we could have called this wheel-forge 😉). I completely accept it isn't always clear cut though - if in doubt, we should see what Debian/other packagers have done.

from conda-forge.github.io.

We do have a tool at our disposal to install non python dependencies, and should be using it IMO (otherwise we could have called this wheel-forge 😉)

Down with wheel-forge! 😆 All joking aside. 😉

We do have a tool at our disposal to install non python dependencies, and should be using it IMO

Agreed. For instance, take a case like pyzmq, I do think we should be teasing out the libraries it is bundling (am trying to do that at present). It is possible that things like libsodium or libzmq, which pyzmq will bundle for you, will be useful for other things and we want to avoid having the same thing twice. Also, we want to be able to leverage things at all levels of the stack easily as we write new recipes.

from conda-forge.github.io.

FWIW, in the case of drmaa, the package author consented and liked the idea of having a python- prefix. Not sure if that factors in at all to this discussion, but am raising it anyways. Further, I'm unaware there is anything in defaults that depends on it. Also, note there are other packages like DRMAA for Go ( https://github.com/dgruber/drmaa ), which may enter in the future possibly because of yours truly. Finally, there is actually an underlying C library the Python package is interfacing with. Based on this, I would argue we leave python-drmaa as is. I have no strong opinion on the others.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I agree. any package that is only (or primarily) a python package doesn't need a python- or py- prefix.

I don't think this is sustainable: what happens if any other ecosystem (mostly the native one, but also lua/R/...) starts a new package with the same name? IMO it would pay off to be consistent and take a bit of pain due to renames (+ transitional packages?)

from conda-forge.github.io.

I like this idea of transitioning to consistent prefixing conventions. There's definitely pain in doing so, but for the long-term I think it's important if the anaconda, conda, conda-forge communities want to be agnostic to particular languages and runtimes. I think it fits in the same general category as the work decoupling MSVC compiler runtimes from Python versions.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I unfortunately agree with @jakirkham. The sooner we are tooled to make this call on a merit basis the better, but in the meantime, we do need to maintain consistency with what has already taken place in defaults.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I believe we can close this issue (not that the discussion is over 😄). Any new "big" changes in the current naming polices should probably be submitted as an enhancement proposal. (Or at least added to the agenda for the meetings.)

from conda-forge.github.io.

Just in case someone in the future stumbles across this closed issue, see this gist: https://gist.github.com/mcg1969/da5aec380d2ed083b79ddcf151ca16f1

from conda-forge.github.io.

Question: both pip and conda are case insensitive, but PyPI allows for mixed case names on the web. Should we do as anaconda does and keep everything lower case?

from conda-forge.github.io.

Question: How to resolve a package name dispute (to avoid name squatters)?

If a discussion cannot resolve the naming we should stick with rule (1).

from conda-forge.github.io.

First try the package original name

Only for python, for r use r-<cran name>

At some point, there will also be subpackages naming (e.g. matplotlib and matplotlib-qt4.

Should we do as anaconda does and keep everything lower case?

My vote: All lower...

from conda-forge.github.io.

Thanks guys. Great start! @ocefpaf - is there an oracle somewhere in the Deb/Fed world on this kind of thing. If I'm honest, I'd personally prefer to follow their naming convention than Anaconda's...

Everything you've said so far makes a lot of sense to me. At the risk of pulling in too many chefs for Github's linear issues (at which point we should probably drop out to the conda-forge mailing list), I'd love to hear the opinions of @ericdill, @rmcgibbo and @mwcraig (and anybody else with experience in this realm).

from conda-forge.github.io.

debian: https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-controlfields.html#s-f-Source

Package names (both source and binary, see Package, Section 5.6.7) must consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character.

There is also the python policy: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/ch-module_packages.html#s-package_names

Public modules used by other packages must have their binary package name prefixed with python-. It is recommended to use this prefix for all packages with public modules as they may be used by other packages in the future. Python 3 modules must be in a separate binary package prefixed with python3- to preserve run time separation between python and python3. The binary package for module foo should preferably be named python-foo, if the module name allows, but this is not required if the binary package ships multiple modules. In the latter case the maintainer chooses the name of the module which represents the package the most. For subpackages such as foo.bar, the recommendation is to name the binary packages python-foo.bar and python3-foo.bar.

from conda-forge.github.io.

@JanSchulz posted:
"consist only of lower case letters (a-z), digits (0-9), plus (+) and minus (-) signs, and periods (.). They must be at least two characters long and must start with an alphanumeric character."

seems reasonable, let's just adopt it.

Python packages should mirror the name on pypi whenever possible, and the actual python package name if there is no py_py name.

[no idea why continuum did what it did with beautiful soup, but what can we do?)

Python bindings to a c lib should be called py_the_lib_name, unless it already has another name on pypi.

c libs should be called lib[the lib name]

• continuum is pretty inconsistent on this, though:
  • libpng
  • jpeg
  • freetype
  • libtiff

And Hey! I just noticed that we're maintaining a "beutifulsoup4" package -- making @ocefpaf 's point!

As for GDAL -- that's a mess -- it's great that the GDAL project provided python bindings, but having them built and installed at at once has been a pain for ages (and not just with conda) And continuum has now split them off, which is good, but they are stuck with the old naming (bad). So let's try not to do that. There are times when multiple things are in one source repo that really should be multiple packages -- so let's keep it that way when we can.

We should put this in a doc somewhere, that we can all edit, rather than this linear discussion...

In the end, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- so let's establish some default standards, and then not get too uptight about it.

from conda-forge.github.io.

In the end, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" -- so let's establish some default standards, and then not get too uptight about it.

👍 for that. Who doesn't have access to the wiki on this repo that would like it? That would seem an obvious first place for the content.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I would be very much for a md document in this repo which gets built into the website. PRs and the possibility to comment and repush are IMO better than wiki style changes...

from conda-forge.github.io.

@JanSchulz: yeah the end goal is probably user-readable docs, so that's a good idea. However, right now the .io site is static html -- is is possible to mix that with Jekyll (Or sphinx?)?

If the longer term goal is a Jekyll site, then starting with .md in the wiki is not so bad....

from conda-forge.github.io.

@ChrisBarker-NOAA My (limited but usually bad) experience with discussion around wiki docs tells me to go with a simple md doc in the repo and simply link to the repo from the html files :-) Comments are much better here...

from conda-forge.github.io.

"conda name = pypi name" is also great for this:

{% set data = load_setuptools() %}

requirements:
  build:
    - python
    {% for req in data.get('install_requires', []) -%}
    - {{req}}
    {% endfor %}

from conda-forge.github.io.

I'm not sure what you mean here -- could you clarify?

On Feb 13, 2016, at 4:21 AM, Jan Schulz [email protected] wrote:

[BTW, it would be really great if conda had a way to submit the pip names
and get conda names back...]

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#18 (comment)
.

from conda-forge.github.io.

@ChrisBarker-NOAA I'm no sure how many packages do have different names than the original pypi package, but there is probably are a few. If tehre would be a function which returned the pip package names as conda package names, then specifying the package dependencies could be as simple as

requirements:
  build:
    - python
    {% for req in translate_to_conda(data.get('install_requires', [])) -%}
    - {{req}}
    {% endfor %}

Or even easier:

requirements:
  build:
    - python
    - {{ TRANSLATED_SETUPPY_REQUIREMENTS}}

...but I should probably take this to the conda-build repo...

from conda-forge.github.io.

hmm, handy, yes -- where would that code go? in conda? a totally separate
utility?

I suppose a conda recipe could have a field in it for the the original pip
name or something. But I suspect this is simply going to require us to
handle special cases in a few places. :-(

-CHB

On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Jan Schulz [email protected]
wrote:

@ChrisBarker-NOAA https://github.com/ChrisBarker-NOAA I'm no sure how
many packages do have different names than the original pypi package, but
there is probably are a few. If tehre would be a function which returned
the pip package names as conda package names, then specifying the package
dependencies could be as simple as

requirements:
build:
- python
{% for req in translate_to_conda(data.get('install_requires', [])) -%}
- {{req}}
{% endfor %}

Or even easier:

requirements:
build:
- python
- {{ TRANSLATED_SETUPPY_REQUIREMENTS}}

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#18 (comment)
.

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception

[email protected]

from conda-forge.github.io.

It needs changes in conda, and conda build as this field needs to be included in the index.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I' a bit confused. We need a "Python name" for Python packages that wrap c libs, but use the same name on PyPi. But it looks like cobra ( also referred to as "cobrapy" requires libgplk, and is called "cobra" on PyPi. So why a new name?

Anyway, for those cases where we do need to disambiguate between c libs and Python wrappers, yes, a consistent naming scheme is good.

I would prefer "py_libname", but python_libname is fine, too. (Though underscores are better than dashes, dashes mean something in package names, to pip anyway)

Unfortunately, plenty of PyPi psckages already use their own, inconsistent naming schemes, but we'll just have to live with that.

from conda-forge.github.io.

One related point. On the lib and Python bindings point, if the library provides Python bindings, I think it is good if we can ensure both the library and Python bindings are installed in the same package. Combining these together so we aren't managing two related pieces and dealing with breaks between them will make maintenance and install more straightforward. Just my thought. If there are other opinions on this, please share.

from conda-forge.github.io.

@jakirkham: it all depend on whether the lib is likely to be needed/used outside of the python package.

I guess we should follow the original package developers lead here --f they bundle the lib on pypi, then we should too. (pyproj is a good example of that -- proj is certainly useful outside of python but the author packages it in with the python bindings)

from conda-forge.github.io.

I don't agree necessarily. By necessity, if you package on PyPI (as a binary wheel) then you must bundle the lib dependencies as you have no other tool at your disposal. We do have a tool at our disposal to install non python dependencies, and should be using it IMO (otherwise we could have called this wheel-forge 😉). I completely accept it isn't always clear cut though - if in doubt, we should see what Debian/other packagers have done.

Agreed. As I said in #56 (comment) pyproj is a special case.

If they bundle the lib on pypi

Most packager will read that: add the lib as a dependency. I can say for Fedora and OpenSUSE that there is nothing similar to the bundling done in wheels.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I don't agree necessarily. By necessity, if you package on PyPI (as a
binary wheel) then you must bundle the lib dependencies as you have no
other tool at your disposal.

True -- and folks usually statically link -- see matplotlib, for instance.

So let me rephrase: if the package authors bundle the source to a
dependency, then we should follow suit. I.e. Pyproj.

CHB

We do have a tool at our disposal to install non python dependencies, and
should be using it IMO (otherwise we could have called this wheel-forge [image:
😉]). I completely accept it isn't always clear cut though - if in
doubt, we should see what Debian/other packagers have done.

Agreed. As I said in #56 (comment)
#56 (comment)
pyproj is a special case.

If they bundle the lib on pypi

Most packager will read that: add the lib as a dependency. I can say for
Fedora and OpenSUSE that there is nothing similar to the bundling done in
wheels.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#18 (comment)

from conda-forge.github.io.

Not familiar with Pyproj, but I think I agree. protobuf is one that came to mind before. They bundle C++, Python, etc. source code together.

from conda-forge.github.io.

cc @ccordoba12

from conda-forge.github.io.

Currently we have a few packages that diverge from defaults names. See https://github.com/conda-forge/python-simplegeneric-feedstock/issues/1#issuecomment-227316114

• simplegeneric
• drmaa
• decorator
• pathlib2

In conda-forge those have the python- prefix.

from conda-forge.github.io.

In conda-forge those have the python- prefix.

I would be in favor of dropping the python- prefix on these but that is just my opinion.

from conda-forge.github.io.

I agree. any package that is only (or primarily) a python package doesn't need a python- or py- prefix.

I prefer to only use those for python wrappers around other libs.

-CHB

from conda-forge.github.io.

I would argue we leave python-drmaa as is.

agreed.

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception

[email protected]

from conda-forge.github.io.

On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jan Schulz [email protected]
wrote:

I agree. any package that is only (or primarily) a python package doesn't
need a python- or py- prefix.

I don't think this is sustainable: what happens if any other ecosystem
(mostly the native one, but also lua/R/...) starts a new package with the
same name? IMO it would pay off to be consistent and take a bit of pain due
to renames (+ transitional packages?)

It would be whoever comes "second"'s job to come up with a new name.

But we have a key problem here -- no none is controlling the namespace. For
PyPi, it's a simple "first come, first serve" system -- which has its
problems, but at least is clear and simple.

Is conda-forge accepted enough that we could call it an authority? i.e. if
a name is used in Anaconda or conda-forge, than it is taken.

calling something py-the_name_on_pypi sort of solves the problem for python
packages, but doesn't address it for anything else anyway.

But maybe you're right -- solving part of the problem may be good enough --
though it's a bit late, lots of folks expect the conda package name to
match what you import in python....(or at least the pypi name)

-CHB

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception

[email protected]

from conda-forge.github.io.

I agree also. If conda-forge does not play nicely with defaults I think it will drive away users and possible contributors. At this staged I think we need to cater to our user base not make it difficult for them to use our packages.

Perhaps at a later time we can figure out a way to gracefully transition to using prefixed package names.

from conda-forge.github.io.

God yes!

I thought this was only about packages that are not currently in default
anyway.

But still -- there is a convention in default -- most python packages are
named the same as their pypi names, and, indeed, most of those are names
what gets imported.

And folks really do expect this to be the case!

-CHB

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Jonathan J. Helmus <
[email protected]> wrote:

I agree also. If conda-forge does not play nicely with defaults I think
it will drive away users and possible contributors. At this staged I think
we need to cater to our user base not make it difficult for them to use our
packages.

Perhaps at a later time we can figure out a way to gracefully transition
to using prefixed package names.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#18 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AA38YPM3_g2yPGz52PVso1qTGFcHnbPNks5qQ91fgaJpZM4HXVdg
.

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception

[email protected]

from conda-forge.github.io.

I thought this was only about packages that are not currently in default anyway.

A long, long time ago it was 😄

from conda-forge.github.io.

This problem seems to be very similar to the issue of Visual Studio versions/compiler level features to me. Disambiguating how a package is built/what it is built for seems to be an integral part of conda that hasn't been sorted out yet. For example, rather than manually prefixing, would it be easier if packages could be 'tagged' with which languages it provides implementations for? Then the user could be given the choice to select a particular language at install time?

from conda-forge.github.io.

Thanks @mwcraig!

from conda-forge.github.io.

PIng!

This just got linked to from another discussion -- looking over this thread, it was proposed that an MD page get created, ultimately to be included (Or linked to) from the conda-forge docs.

@mwcraig started on that with the gist linked to above:

https://gist.github.com/mcg1969/da5aec380d2ed083b79ddcf151ca16f1

looks like the discussion petered out in May...

from conda-forge.github.io.

Just to clarify, I didn't write that gist, I just linked to it. I'm not capable of thinking that deeply about package name-spacing 😀

from conda-forge.github.io.