Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #10091 > unrolled thread

Package name of src:fontmake

Started by	Yao Wei <mwei@lxde.org>
First post	2018-01-27 15:10 +0100
Last post	2018-01-29 11:10 +0100
Articles	5 — 4 participants

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

  Package name of src:fontmake Yao Wei <mwei@lxde.org> - 2018-01-27 15:10 +0100
    Re: Package name of src:fontmake Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2018-01-27 15:30 +0100
      Re: Package name of src:fontmake Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2018-01-27 19:40 +0100
        Re: Package name of src:fontmake Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2018-01-28 05:00 +0100
          Re: Package name of src:fontmake Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2018-01-29 11:10 +0100

#10091 — Package name of src:fontmake

From	Yao Wei <mwei@lxde.org>
Date	2018-01-27 15:10 +0100
Subject	Package name of src:fontmake
Message-ID	<vczl7-1Rf-3@gated-at.bofh.it>

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

Hi,

We at Fonts Team are packaging utilities for building fonts from
Glyphs.app and UFO format to OTF/TTF, and we are trying to align our
package to Python Policy.

The packaging effort is in Salsa:
https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fontmake

We feel unsettled of the binary package naming.  Should it be:

 * "fontmake" single package
 * "python3-fontmake" single package
 * "fontmake" package for /usr/bin and "python3-fontmake" package
   elsewhere?

My personal intepretation is that since this package is not used as
python library this should be "fontmake" single package, but we need
someone from Python Teams to confirm that.

Yao Wei

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10092

From	Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Date	2018-01-27 15:30 +0100
Message-ID	<vczEu-1Zq-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10091


On January 27, 2018 2:05:59 PM UTC, Yao Wei <mwei@lxde.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>We at Fonts Team are packaging utilities for building fonts from
>Glyphs.app and UFO format to OTF/TTF, and we are trying to align our
>package to Python Policy.
>
>The packaging effort is in Salsa:
>https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fontmake
>
>We feel unsettled of the binary package naming.  Should it be:
>
> * "fontmake" single package
> * "python3-fontmake" single package
> * "fontmake" package for /usr/bin and "python3-fontmake" package
>   elsewhere?
>
>My personal intepretation is that since this package is not used as
>python library this should be "fontmake" single package, but we need
>someone from Python Teams to confirm that.

I think that makes sense.

You have to make a judgement call about the primary purpose of the package.  If it's primarily an application and any python modules in the package are only for use of the application, then sticking with the upstream name is a sensible choice.

Scott K

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

#10093

From	Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org>
Date	2018-01-27 19:40 +0100
Message-ID	<vcDyp-4rP-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10092

> >My personal intepretation is that since this package is not used as
> >python library this should be "fontmake" single package, but we need
> >someone from Python Teams to confirm that.
> 
> I think that makes sense.
> 
> You have to make a judgement call about the primary purpose of the
> package.  If it's primarily an application and any python modules in
> the package are only for use of the application, then sticking with
> the upstream name is a sensible choice.

please also remember to install this private library into private (as
in: outside dist-packages) dir. You can do that with something like:

 override_dh_auto_install:
 	dh_auto_install -- --install-args=--install-lib=/usr/share/fontmake/
	mv debian/fontmake/usr/bin/fontmake debian/fontmake/usr/share/fontmake/run
	dh_link /usr/share/fontmake/run /usr/bin/fontmake
-- 
GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

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

#10094

From	Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org>
Date	2018-01-28 05:00 +0100
Message-ID	<vcMil-1wn-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10093

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:

> please also remember to install this private library into private (as
> in: outside dist-packages) dir. You can do that with something like:

Is there or should there be a lintian warning about packages not named
python{,3}-* containing public Python libraries?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

#10095

From	Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org>
Date	2018-01-29 11:10 +0100
Message-ID	<vdexX-2Rl-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to	#10094

[Paul Wise, 2018-01-28]
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> 
> > please also remember to install this private library into private (as
> > in: outside dist-packages) dir. You can do that with something like:
> 
> Is there or should there be a lintian warning about packages not named

I'd use an error instead of warning

> python{,3}-* containing public Python libraries?

I just checked https://lintian.debian.org/tags.html and I don't see such
tag. Any volunteers to provide one?
-- 
GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

csiph-web

Package name of src:fontmake

Contents

#10091 — Package name of src:fontmake

#10092

#10093

#10094

#10095