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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16406

Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW)

Show all headers | View raw

On October 27, 2024 9:04:41 PM UTC, Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> wrote:
>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?

I think this is fine:

- psrecord as source package name
- python3-psrecord as binary package name 

You can also have

Provides: psrecord

Then apt install psrecord will work.

Scott K

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