Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Peter Wienemann Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Oct 27 19:12:48 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.93 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.421, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Debian-User: wiene X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/22473 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/a6ec3249-e744-4b2c-b094-b033ee2b0295@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 27 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 20:12:28 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <059e32a6-6909-48e9-aeb9-22cd31013db8@debian.org> <6029701.OdEgEQYsGK@zini-1880> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16403 Hi Scott, On 2024-10-26 17:00:18, Scott Kitterman wrote: > From reading this thread, it seems like psrecord is an application written in > Python. Upstream could, if they felt like it, re-implement the whole thing in > Rust and it would still be psrecord. Assuming that's at least generally > correct, I think psrecord is definitely the correct package name. yes, I think this applies to psrecord. > The only exception is that applications which provide a publically available > module/ extension that other programs can use should provide a binary which > uses the python3-foo naming convention (see spf-engine as an example). It is > a matter of taste and judgement for small applications that provide a public > module/extension should ship the application in a separate binary package or > not. Generally, tiny packages are bad because they require more overhead, > including making the packages file bigger for every single user. In addition psrecord provides a public module (as per [0]) but I am inclined to consider this one of the "small application" cases which do not warrant a separate binary package. Best regards, Peter [0] https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#public-and-internal-interfaces