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

Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1271128

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

Show all headers | View raw

[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

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web