Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder7.news.weretis.net!news.albasani.net!tahina.priv.at!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Mattia Rizzolo Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Separate lib and executable packages? Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 17:10:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Fri Feb 7 16:01:08 2020 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.9 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -3.5 Mail-Followup-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk" Content-Disposition: inline X-Info: Keep It Simple, Stupid. X-Operating-System: Linux, kernel 5.2.0-2-amd64, inside Debian GNU/Linux bullseye/sid sid. X-Message-Flag: WARNING!! Outlook sucks. A lot. User-Agent: Every email client sucks, this one just sucks less. X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/17902 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20200207155946.GA385407@mapreri.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 57 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:59:46 +0100 X-Original-Message-ID: <20200207155946.GA385407@mapreri.org> X-Original-References: <20200207113600.fzlk2wzks4hwazfd@emissary.chronitis.net> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:12278 --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:36:00AM +0000, Gordon Ball wrote: > I wonder if this split really makes sense; it feels like adding the > overhead of an extra binary package to avoid not having a very small > file in /usr/bin if you're only planning to use the library. >=20 > Does it seem reasonable to drop the executable package and just make it > a Provides: of the library package? (and is there any potential breakage > here that I'm overlooking) Maybe not for ipython3, since that's very much tied to python3-ipython3. BUT, as a user (even forgetting I'm also a DD) I was hurt many times by executables in python-foo but wanting to use python3-foo instead, or by executables that moved from python-foo to python3-foo and I had to fix my own deployments, and whatnot. We are not going to have a python4 anytime soon (hopefully never), but I think that keeping a separate binary package makes sense for almost all cases I can think of packages shipping executables under /usr/bin/. --=20 regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=3Dmattia `- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEi3hoeGwz5cZMTQpICBa54Yx2K60FAl49iXAACgkQCBa54Yx2 K61dFg/9FRVmYJNbR8IxiIuDNCGk54/buHIKcAw8xubsHQgzRtKzsZtjxDMYKpar Dk4KHz5RlwAVNcJ9BRa9kMHWIgeeBBynhT9kQxz2LNEIrXxbeCNbH7G5TvyydaLJ tC/UutIl9u/980HuE5VvX2AIim17s5ktj+hMERvXGwYkE0PJhplKVp1n/sWUkUyl GpiL2+Xdf1qGV5u2COIOVmXMkgSg41yNSWpcOy9xoIgySzDtX7lYp5TW6UqkpbZa DrnxeLhNawt9MWrK4khewVjObS7thR7N5E98zfMkRDyH4WYWgcibCtfHG8PqaU/t lReeW7N+7gvbGDRpdMQNJ6fwpAQV6oqkjyB27/b41eGtzbUx7cNe9R9IYOmdHKBO HBr4IJaKZraa0kyP+RdJOgbWagV7qIwFIlxPQ3GqLpThs7kAhVR3ZYuBnsWo5Ltq wnPBtzWMPmemfrOAaprH9l1hlzVUf12upiaflJdvuMedeweYQx/oK1G+ht+tciAl 35OmpmGecWMkSyuEY+lpzGBXUFnGTt/kU0QR4HPZco97bLbzTCErjtJ7hSLjYsBU tG6a3zjHQPFnznxAMFEB2QONnpGMcB4sXPNnXg6kl3eQUuG3PtmyGhWtqjyeYxLY A07V+lEkaW3jUnfNJN0KZ93ZZO7ZPGCL6Y4UcQrepbHzMKOcD5w= =dJDb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qDbXVdCdHGoSgWSk--