Comments regarding tpot_0.11.1+dfsg1-1_amd64.changes

[Christian Kastner]

On 28.03.20 16:11, Sean Whitton wrote:
>> While I figure this out with upstream (which may take time), would it be
>> OK if I upload a +dfsg2 with the logo removed? It's anything but vital
>> to the doc package.
> 
> Certainly.

Great! I just uploaded +dfsg2, with the logo removed.

>>> - is the doc binary package name correct?  I would have expected to
>>>   see tpot-doc.
>>
>> It's a common pattern for Python module doc packages to be named after
>> the binary module package, eg:
>>   * src:scipy -> python3-scipy, python-scipy-doc
>>   * src:numpy -> python3-numpy, python-numpy-doc
>>
>> $ apt-cache search 'python-.*-doc' | wc -l
>> 652
>>
>> I found the practice of keeping the python- prefix for the -doc package
>> odd (instead of switching to python3-), but I the Python2 removal page
>> [1] states that a rename should not happen.
>>
>> However, as I just realized, this is not a rename, but a new upload.
>> I'll ask debian-python, just to be sure.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Python/2Removal
> 
> I'm happy to take your word for it -- just wanted to ask :)

In any case, the answers were interesting, and the python- prefix now
makes more sense to me.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2020/03/msg00073.html