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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16401 > unrolled thread

python-pyinstaller: package naming questions

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  python-pyinstaller:  package naming questions Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2024-10-25 22:10 +0200
    Re: python-pyinstaller:  package naming questions Soren Stoutner <soren@debian.org> - 2024-10-31 22:30 +0100

#16401 — python-pyinstaller: package naming questions

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

I am in the process of packaging python-pyinstaller.

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084906

Currently my source package is named python-pyinstaller.  It produces two binary 
packages:

pyinstaller - installs executables to /usr/bin
python3-pyinstaller - installs Python modules to /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages

I have been following the discussion about package names and have started to wonder if 
pyinstaller wouldn’t be a better source package name.  That is what it is called upstream, 
and the “py” prefix already indicates it is related to Python.

Beyond that, I was wondering if it wouldn’t be better to only provide one binary file.  I don’t 
know if there is any value to the Python modules without the executables in /usr/bin.  Is 
there any policy or best practice that says this should be split into two binary packages?

Soren

P.S.  I figured I would ask now as it is easy to make changes before the first upload.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#16432

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

I didn’t receive any responses to the below email, so I decided to go with 
pyinstaller as the source package name, but to still use two binary packages:  
pyinstaller and python3-pyinstaller.

On Friday, October 25, 2024 1:07:53 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote:
> I am in the process of packaging python-pyinstaller.
> 
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084906
> 
> Currently my source package is named python-pyinstaller.  It produces two
> binary packages:
> 
> pyinstaller - installs executables to /usr/bin
> python3-pyinstaller - installs Python modules to
> /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages
> 
> I have been following the discussion about package names and have started to
> wonder if pyinstaller wouldn’t be a better source package name.  That is 
what
> it is called upstream, and the “py” prefix already indicates it is related to
> Python.
> 
> Beyond that, I was wondering if it wouldn’t be better to only provide one
> binary file.  I don’t know if there is any value to the Python modules
> without the executables in /usr/bin.  Is there any policy or best practice
> that says this should be split into two binary packages?
> 
> Soren
> 
> P.S.  I figured I would ask now as it is easy to make changes before the first
> upload.


-- 
Soren Stoutner
soren@debian.org

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web