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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16741

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

Show key headers only | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

Hi!
On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 03:37:37PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
I've forgotten the python-deadlib case. It is one upsream source
repository and 12 binary packages from different folders from upsream.
Maybe that you was looking?

cheers!
> 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

-- 
cheers,
        Emmanuel Arias

 ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
 ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  eamanu@debian.org
 ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀  OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1                     
 ⠈⠳⣄

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