Le 17/03/2012 18:52, Ike Devolder a écrit :
in my oppinion it is worth it, there are people around who dont want any
python3 stuff on their pc until they can move everything
now your weasyprint combined package pulls a lot of stuff, it is simple
in a way that it will always work but you have a*lot* of overhead there
Ok I can understand that.
so personally i would consider the following:
- have python-weasyprint with renamed binary python-weasyprint
- have python2-weasyprint with renamed binary python2-weasyprint
- have weasyprint with only a binary weasyprint which can start any of
the previous
Again, I don’t think multiple binaries are useful.
*or*
- have python-weasyprint only with libs, no binary
- have python2-weasyprint only with libs, no binary
- have weasyprint which can 'decide' which of the above is installed
and run it with /usr/bin/python or /usr/bin/python2
attached a possibility to switch to the installed version
python{,2}-weasyprint packages with only libs sound good. I only use it
as a lib myself; I added the command-line interface because it was easy.
Actually, it’s probably better to have a long-lived python process than
to pay the start-up cost every time, even in a non-python application.
As for the third package, would it depend on one or the other lib package?
I found two patterns in existing packages in [community]:
* python-pygments just removes /usr/bin/pygmentize (python2-pygments has it)
* python2-sphinx renames eg. /usr/bin/sphinx-build to sphinx-build2, but
I guess it could be important to have both if Sphinx need to import the
documented code.
Regards,
--
Simon Sapin
