Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #17130

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

Path	csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!srl.newsdeef.eu!news.corradoroberto.it!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Date	Sun, 09 Nov 2025 04:20:01 +0100
Message-ID	<LP489-byDc-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<LP2g2-bxi4-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <LP2g2-bxi4-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <LP2g2-bxi4-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sun Nov 9 03:18:47 2025
Old-Return-Path	<sten@debian.org>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-114.41 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, FOURLA=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
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Debian-User	sten
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/23330
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/871pm7j3ls.fsf@gmail.com
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	86
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
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 22:18:23 -0500
X-Original-Message-ID	<871pm7j3ls.fsf@gmail.com>
X-Original-References	<E1vHq2d-000qyx-0M@fasolo.debian.org> <8605652.T7Z3S40VBb@soren-laptop> <10370999.Qv0yOoSAZ5@soren-desktop>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:17130

Show key headers only | View raw

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

Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> writes:

>>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.

"They depend on each other" is the key point here.

>> > 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?

Convention != policy. We have a convention that must be balanced against
ftpmasters policy.  Can you find a citation in DPT Policy that says it's
more than a convention?  I haven't looked at your specific case, but
there are precedents where the Python lib can be considered internal to
the application and/or not useful as a system lib, and there used to be
more documentation about this when the DPT had the PAPT subsection.

I would be surprised if ftpmasters were wrong in this case, and that
packaging the lib with the application (as historic PAPT packages were)
would somehow do a grave disservice to our users.  "They depend on each
other" indicates that the lib isn't useful on its own.

Ftpmasters' decision today doesn't mean that at some point in the future
the package shouldn't be split.  If a future version of the lib no
longer depends on the app and is useful as a general system lib, then
that is when you add the second package and send it through the NEW
queue for reevaluation.  Why is that unacceptable?

Cheers,
Nicholas

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