Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #17129

Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

Path	csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Date	Sun, 09 Nov 2025 02:20:02 +0100
Message-ID	<LP2g2-bxi4-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<LP2g2-bxi4-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <LP2g2-bxi4-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <LP2g2-bxi4-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Original-To	Debian Python <debian-python@lists.debian.org>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Nov 9 01:12:53 2025
Old-Return-Path	<soren@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-114.51 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-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
Organization	Debian
Face	iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAFVBMVEWIg4F7bGiws7ReTkyy kYoXFRrd6/4yMA0PAAACaklEQVQ4y22TwXabMBBFJaPuNZGSNZZp1uhM6BpkJeu4VFk3bsL/f0Lf CHC6qHyOgbl68zTDoIwaVfh3tUopTUGpbFToDiFnY9IY2oMAZYMiS4R9SfbSXepSS5EcFAa/muIU aRj8mkoUqrEraFzhYegBmqig0LyCIyM8DAwPlpBqmJVYaD2UeWZ3abVjsqKIojg+hY4omsyIcNSi qIBM6jJWOveS6kvBeVvHJ+VYzJUW88RmA12UiBx3HEcUMRuzIZI6tBQovTrPclNB3AuUXoXvs0XY C3B2baJpW4Dn2ZpVMInCirkxoyhM1qpK5nFrO65QvCrCqql2DyPgvm94iMQz5/PmISuEotxQGMD5 M5G1N9CjXJ5HQH96BZG2xx6AzejYZccxT4Re3Zr4bPKkCcGcz5Or3dVEABkAUY/znnVcQVVkrXVU vomoEJFe7x4nQuaZmZELL6qnXZGIB5YV/Q2IogtSmyNybEcBX2+QCLOAQYm+gmoORUrYzV7dc6R2 T1WPm45oVEQqsjtoIovHyTmcyxMhVVxTqapomZyLlAmTKC9AmjgamXXGZo+epNrXO3wGGiPRHbKL FnMy2RRgRb1gzFXXGjhICp8wqaTtdtyQH6nWTfkatJvJJoUCbOjSC7wR9/naEVognxrOFdLh7Ugx QpA/0QT4pRV0+u2dqsXD5y9EBDjVAJS3ZZLxmZblgmsU8x7mBeCKg48Py7WU2IiH1epbEbC8K9Ms y0cpcySVUcdQVrBY+rEsv+XpYgFKXT8B3v2yATxv8fKK2EfC358tsIMLYqfD401xA0j1EY4P/wWf IbhlOWyBv4OQsywBM8MAAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart16173573.epW5CAu6da"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Debian-User	soren
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/23329
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/10370999.Qv0yOoSAZ5@soren-desktop
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	124
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Cc	Manuel Guerra <ar.manuelguerra@gmail.com>, Bastian Blank <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>
X-Original-Date	Sat, 08 Nov 2025 18:12:27 -0700
X-Original-Message-ID	<10370999.Qv0yOoSAZ5@soren-desktop>
X-Original-References	<E1vHq2d-000qyx-0M@fasolo.debian.org> <8605652.T7Z3S40VBb@soren-laptop>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:17129

Show key headers only | View raw

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

I am resending the messages below to the Debian Python Team mailing list for 
further input.

On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:36:15 PM Mountain Standard Time Soren Stoutner 
wrote:
> On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:00:11 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian
> Blank
> 
> wrote:
> > Please merge the two binary packages.  There is no visible reason to
> > split them, as they depend on each other and are small.
> 
> I am a little confused.  This package structure is what is typically used by
> the Debian Python Team.
> 
> 1.  Pure Python modules are packaged as python3-foo, are part of the python
> section, and install to /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages.
> 
> 2.  Executables are packaged separately, are part of the utils section, and
> install to /usr/bin.
> 
> The executables depend on the pure Python modules, but the pure Python
> modules
> do not depends on the executables (as is the case here).  This is because
> there are use cases where other program only need to depend on the pure
> Python modules, but a user installing the executable will want both
> packages.
> 
> There are a lot of examples of this.  Here are a few that I just pulled out,
> but there are probably dozens or hundreds of examples.
> 
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/electrum
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/alembic
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/beancount
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cssmin
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-dmm
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/flatlatex
> 
> Are you saying that the standard way the Debian Python Team has been
> packaging
> programs should be changed?

Bastian Blank responded to the above with the following:

>On Saturday, November 8, 2025 5:59:27 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian Blank 
>wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 02:36:15PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:00:11 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian
> > Blank
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > Please merge the two binary packages.  There is no visible reason to
> > > split them, as they depend on each other and are small.
> > 
> > The executables depend on the pure Python modules, but the pure Python
> > modules do not depends on the executables (as is the case here).  This is
> > because there are use cases where other program only need to depend on the
> > pure Python modules, but a user installing the executable will want both
> > packages.
> Please read our FAQ, it is listed under "Package split".
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> 
> Such one file packages are explicitly mentioned as usually not okay to
> be split away.

I am curious to get the team’s reaction to this.  As far as I can tell, this 
represents a change in expectations from the FTP Masters.  It is true that 
this is part of the FAQ, but there is long-standing practice of splitting such 
packages to maintain the Python naming conventions.  Or, am I somehow mistaken 
about how it is expected that Python modules be packaged?

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

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

Thread

Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-11-09 02:20 +0100
  Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2025-11-09 04:20 +0100
    Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Soren Stoutner <soren@stoutner.com> - 2025-11-09 05:20 +0100
      Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Carsten Schoenert <c.schoenert@t-online.de> - 2025-11-09 07:50 +0100
        Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-11-09 15:40 +0100
        Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> - 2025-11-13 17:20 +0100
          Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-11-13 19:10 +0100
            Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2025-11-20 23:00 +0100
      Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED Bastian Blank <waldi@debian.org> - 2025-11-09 13:30 +0100

csiph-web