Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16726

Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best packaging practice ?

Path	csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best packaging practice ?
Date	Tue, 18 Feb 2025 22:40:01 +0100
Message-ID	<KhDtT-dLC-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<KhBV8-cGY-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KhDay-dEJ-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Feb 18 21:37:57 2025
Old-Return-Path	<edd@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-110.437 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, BODY_8BITS=1.5, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.34, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MURPHY_FINANCE10=0.5, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.588, 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
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding	quoted-printable
X-Mailer	VM 8.2.0b under 29.4 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
X-Debian-User	edd
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/22830
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/26548.64929.74712.119971@rob.eddelbuettel.com
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	76
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Cc	Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org>, debian-python <debian-python@lists.debian.org>
X-Original-Date	Tue, 18 Feb 2025 15:37:37 -0600
X-Original-Message-ID	<26548.64929.74712.119971@rob.eddelbuettel.com>
X-Original-References	<26548.58731.571734.173421@rob.eddelbuettel.com> <Z7T5CfnNtak_B8fV@debian>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16726

Show key headers only | View raw

Hi Emanuel,

Thanks for the prompt reply!

On 18 February 2025 at 18:18, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
| Hi!
| On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 01:54:19PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| > 
| > Hi all,
| > 
| > I have long maintained rpy2 (and rpy before) which provides a bridge from
| > Python to R (which I tend to care more for), and am on friendly terms with
| > its author. You can see my repo at salsa [1], it is pretty vanilla.
| > 
| > The upcoming upstream release will split into three packages, all in the same
| > source repo [2]. I am a casual Python user, and not all into packaging there
| > (source or for Debian). But I can wondering that this arrangement must exist
| > elsewhere. Is there a good pattern I can borrow to build (and then install ?)
| > rpy2-interfaces to then build (and install ?) rpy2-objects to then build
| > rpy2?
| >
| Seems very similar to basemap[0]
| 
| [0] https://sources.debian.org/src/basemap/1.4.1-1/

I may have been unclear in what I was looking for.  If I read this correctly,
then it "bends" the upstreeam layout to effectively undo the package split?

I was thinking more along the lines of 'how do I create three binary Python
packages that are interdependent from one source repo'. Is that doable?

Dirk

| > Python users see these as independent as they are in three different PyPI
| > packages.
| > 
| > Is there a best or recommended way to approach this?  CCs welcome, I am not
| > subscribed to debian-python.
| > 
| > Cheers,  Dirk 
| > 
| > 
| > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/edd/rpy2
| > [2] https://github.com/rpy2/rpy2
| > -- 
| > dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
| 
| -- 
| cheers,
|         Emmanuel Arias
| 
|  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
|  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  eamanu@debian.org
|  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1                     
|  ⠈⠳⣄
| x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]

-- 
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org

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

Thread

Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best packaging practice ? Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> - 2025-02-18 21:00 +0100
  Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best  packaging practice ? Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org> - 2025-02-18 22:20 +0100
    Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best  packaging practice ? Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> - 2025-02-18 22:40 +0100
      Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best  packaging practice ? Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2025-02-23 23:40 +0100
      Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best  packaging practice ? Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@debian.org> - 2025-02-25 18:00 +0100
        Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best  packaging practice ? Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> - 2025-02-25 18:30 +0100

csiph-web