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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #15056 > unrolled thread

Should cocotb & pyuvm be under Electronics or Python team ?

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

Contents

  Should cocotb & pyuvm be under Electronics or Python team ? أحمد المحمودي <aelmahmoudy@users.sourceforge.net> - 2023-07-23 02:10 +0200
    Re: Should cocotb & pyuvm be under Electronics or Python team ? Agathe Porte <gagath@debian.org> - 2023-07-23 17:40 +0200
      Re: Should cocotb & pyuvm be under Electronics or Python team ? أحمد المحمودي <aelmahmoudy@users.sourceforge.net> - 2023-07-26 01:00 +0200
        Re: Should cocotb & pyuvm be under Electronics or Python team ? thomas@goirand.fr - 2023-07-26 05:50 +0200

#15056 — Should cocotb & pyuvm be under Electronics or Python team ?

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

Resending because I forgot to include ITP links.

Hello, 

  I am currently working on packages for cocotb [1] & pyuvm [2], both 
  are Python packages, that are used for verification (simulation) of 
  VHDL/*Verilog models, ie. their scope is electronics. Do I am 
  wondering whether to package them under Electeonics team or Python 
  team.

  Also, I've set the Section source control field to 'electronics', yet 
  lintian complained that since the binary package names are 
  python3-{cocotb/pyuvm}, then the section should be 'python'. Should I 
  ignore/override that ? Or should I modifybthe Section field to 
  'python' ?

Thanks

[1] ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/1041288
[2] ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/1041285

-- 
‎أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy)
 Digital design engineer
GPG KeyIDs: 4096R/A7EF5671 2048R/EDDDA1B7
GPG Fingerprints:
 6E2E E4BB 72E2 F417 D066  6ABF 7B30 B496 A7EF 5761
 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8  B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#15061

Hi Ahmed,

2023-07-23 02:04 CEST, أحمد المحمودي:
>   I am currently working on packages for cocotb [1] & pyuvm [2], both
>   are Python packages, that are used for verification (simulation) of
>   VHDL/*Verilog models, ie. their scope is electronics. Do I am
>   wondering whether to package them under Electeonics team or Python
>   team.

For choosing the team, it depends on which expertise you want the team
which holds the package to have. For pure Python software, I would say
that the expertise of the Debian Python Team is more useful.

>   Also, I've set the Section source control field to 'electronics', yet
>   lintian complained that since the binary package names are
>   python3-{cocotb/pyuvm}, then the section should be 'python'. Should I
>   ignore/override that ? Or should I modifybthe Section field to
>   'python' ?

>From my quick look at cocotb’s documentation [3], it seems to ship at
least one binary in $PATH named `cocotb-config`. Here is how it could be
packaged:

- `cocotb` srcpkg in `electronics` section;
- `python3-cocotb` binpkg in `python` section, containing the library;
- `cocotb` binpkg in `electronics` section, Depends on `python3-cocotb`
  and contains the executables.

Same advice would apply for pyuvm, which I did not look at.

> [1] ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/1041288
> [2] ITP: https://bugs.debian.org/1041285
[3] https://docs.cocotb.org/en/stable/quickstart.html

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

#15062

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

On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 01:01:39PM +0200, Agathe Porte wrote:
> From my quick look at cocotb’s documentation [3], it seems to ship at
> least one binary in $PATH named `cocotb-config`. Here is how it could be
> packaged:
> 
> - `cocotb` srcpkg in `electronics` section;
> - `python3-cocotb` binpkg in `python` section, containing the library;
> - `cocotb` binpkg in `electronics` section, Depends on `python3-cocotb`
>   and contains the executables.
---end quoted text---

Well, I am reluctant to separate the python module from the binary, as 
the python module doesn't seem to be useful without the binary.

I've got another issue, that is cocotb requires find_libppython module, 
which is used to find libpython on the system, so should I package 
find_libpython, which doesn't seem to be needed on Debian, just for the 
sake of cocotb ? Or should I just patch cocotb and put some simplified code (tailored for Debian) that finds path to libpython ?

-- 
‎أحمد المحمودي (Ahmed El-Mahmoudy)
 Digital design engineer
GPG KeyIDs: 4096R/A7EF5671 2048R/EDDDA1B7
GPG Fingerprints:
 6E2E E4BB 72E2 F417 D066  6ABF 7B30 B496 A7EF 5761
 8206 A196 2084 7E6D 0DF8  B176 BC19 6A94 EDDD A1B7

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

#15063

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

On Jul 26, 2023 6:57 AM, أحمد المحمودي <aelmahmoudy@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:

>

> On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 01:01:39PM +0200, Agathe Porte wrote: 

> I've got another issue, that is cocotb requires find_libppython module, 

> which is used to find libpython on the system, so should I package 

> find_libpython, which doesn't seem to be needed on Debian, just for the 

> sake of cocotb ? Or should I just patch cocotb and put some simplified code (tailored for Debian) that finds path to libpython ? 


My opinion on that one is: do whatever will use the least amount of your time. I didn't look into the upstream code that you are talking about, so I cannot tell, so I leave the evaluation to you. If the patch seems easy to write AND maintain in the long run, the it is probably the least time consuming task for you, rather than maintaining another package that potentially will also need bugfix and updates.


Best would be if you could convince cocotb upstream to accept your patch. It may work if you explain clearly why you need this patch.


Hoping this helps,

Cheers,


Thomas Goirand (zigo)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web