Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16405

Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi Scott,

On 2024-10-27 20:12:28, Peter Wienemann wrote:
> 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.

re-reading your message, I think I got it wrong in my above reply. Sorry 
for the confusion. I am trying to summarize to clarify the situation:

Since psrecord ships both an executable and a public module (and it is 
small), the suggested package names are:

- psrecord as source package name
- python3-psrecord as binary package name (shipping executable and module)

Alternative (but not recommended due to the smallness):

- psrecord as source package name
- python3-psrecord as binary package name (shipping the module)
- psrecord as additional binary package name (shipping the executable).

Is choosing psrecord as source package name still advisable in the above 
cases? Or is python-psrecord as source package name better for the 
executable+module case?

Best regards

Peter

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> - 2024-10-24 21:40 +0200
  Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-10-26 17:10 +0200
    Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> - 2024-10-27 20:20 +0100
      Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> - 2024-10-27 22:10 +0100
        Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-10-27 22:20 +0100
        Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Alexandru Mihail <alexandru.mihail2897@gmail.com> - 2024-10-27 22:30 +0100
  Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> - 2024-10-27 20:50 +0100
  Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW) Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> - 2024-11-11 20:20 +0100

csiph-web