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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1271048 > unrolled thread

Bug#1121125: please provide library package python3-gftools separate from executable

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist

Contents

  Bug#1121125: please provide library package python3-gftools separate from executable Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2025-11-21 14:20 +0100
    Bug#1121125: please provide library package python3-gftools separate from executable Nicholas D Steeves <sten@debian.org> - 2025-11-22 01:00 +0100
      Bug#1121125: please provide library package python3-gftools separate from executable Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> - 2025-11-22 08:50 +0100
        Bug#1121125: please provide library package python3-gftools separate from executable Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org> - 2025-11-22 10:40 +0100

#1271048 — Bug#1121125: please provide library package python3-gftools separate from executable

Source: gftools
Version: 0.9.95+dfsg-1
Severity: important

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

The binary package gftools provide both an executable and a python3
shared library.

Please provide the python3 shared library as a separate binary package
pyth3-gftools, for use independently of the executable.

Raising severity somewhat, as this is arguably a policy violation.

 - Jonas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=N2wi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1271105

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

Hi Jonas!

Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:

> Source: gftools
> Version: 0.9.95+dfsg-1
> Severity: important
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> The binary package gftools provide both an executable and a python3
> shared library.
>
> Please provide the python3 shared library as a separate binary package
> pyth3-gftools, for use independently of the executable.

An ftpmaster recently rejected a NEW upload that was split like this,
and the justification appears to have been that it was micropackaging
without benefit (see Subject lines for the last two weeks of DPT
emails).

> Raising severity somewhat, as this is arguably a policy violation.

Why?  Also, is this a case where Policy (and/or DPT policy) needs to be
amended?

I don't have a stake in this, but now there appears to be a direct
contradiction in policies...'hopefully clearing this up will go smoothly
in a low-drama way! :)

Regards,
Nicholas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1271128

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

Hi Nicholas,

Quoting Nicholas D Steeves (2025-11-22 00:51:23)
> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
> > The binary package gftools provide both an executable and a python3
> > shared library.
> >
> > Please provide the python3 shared library as a separate binary
> > package pyth3-gftools, for use independently of the executable.
> 
> An ftpmaster recently rejected a NEW upload that was split like this,
> and the justification appears to have been that it was micropackaging
> without benefit (see Subject lines for the last two weeks of DPT
> emails).

Can you provide a link to the mentioned conversation, if it was public?

Oh, and correction: I made a typo above - I meant to request provision
of binary package python3-gftools.

 
> > Raising severity somewhat, as this is arguably a policy violation.
> 
> Why?  Also, is this a case where Policy (and/or DPT policy) needs to
> be amended?

If it has become Debian Policy to no longer provide Python libraries in
section "python", and (as I guess is the ftpmaster practice you are
referring to above) it has become Debian Policy to not permit
separation of binaries and libraries when the resulting binary package
is smaller than some arbitrary amount of bits, then I guess you might
be right that some Policy needs to be amended. Which one I don't know,
and the ambiguity of this is the reason I only raised severty slightly
and added the word "arguably".

> I don't have a stake in this, but now there appears to be a direct
> contradiction in policies...'hopefully clearing this up will go
> smoothly in a low-drama way! :)

I have no interest in drama. I have interest in packaging 100+
fonts-noto-* source packages, all of which will depend on the Python
library "notobuilder", which in turn depends on the python library
"gftool" currently embedded in the binary package "gftool".

Python tooling expects python libraries to be named "python3-*".
Perhaps everything works fine if the binary package "gftool" gets added
a virtually provided package name "python3-gftool"?

 - Jonas

-- 
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
 * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1271137

Hi,

Am 22.11.25 um 08:42 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> Hi Nicholas,
>
> Quoting Nicholas D Steeves (2025-11-22 00:51:23)
>> Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> writes:
>>> The binary package gftools provide both an executable and a python3
>>> shared library.
>>>
>>> Please provide the python3 shared library as a separate binary
>>> package pyth3-gftools, for use independently of the executable.
>> An ftpmaster recently rejected a NEW upload that was split like this,
>> and the justification appears to have been that it was micropackaging
>> without benefit (see Subject lines for the last two weeks of DPT
>> emails).
> Can you provide a link to the mentioned conversation, if it was pub
> lic?

https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2025/11/msg00008.html ff.

(I don't like the rejection either and would have split them, too...)


Regards,


Rene

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.bugs.dist

csiph-web