On April 6, 2016 10:37:24 PM EDT, Tiago Ilieve <tiago.my...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Dmitry,
>
>On 6 April 2016 at 17:21, Dmitry Shachnev <mity...@debian.org> wrote:
>> 1. Public (/usr/lib/python*/dist-packages) vs private (/usr/share/)
>location
>> depends on whether the module is intended to be used by third-party
>packages,
>> or only by grip itself.
>>
>> 2. The Style Guide doesn't *require* both Python 2 and 3. The Python
>3
>> package is required, but add the Python 2 one only if you really need
>it.
>>
>> 3. If you decide to ship files in a public location (dist-packages),
>then
>> the package having those files should be named python3-something, not
>> just 'grip'.
>>
>> 4. Setuptools-generated entry points for public modules are fine, but
>for
>> private ones it's better to use your own ones or symlinks.
>>
>> Hope that answers your questions.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to explain me this, but actually I got a
>little bit confused. Because yes, what you said is consistent with
>what I found on articles about Python packaging on wiki.d.o[1][2], but
>at the same time there are well-known packages in the archive that
>contradicts this, specially the item "3".
>
>The package that I used as an example is tox. It used to be called
>"python-tox", which is now a transitional dummy package[3]. Now is
>named "tox"[4], because it is intended to be used as a CLI
>application, but at the same time it ships its files in
>"dist-packages"[5].
>
>I followed the tox example and named the package "grip", not
>"python-grip", because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here. I
>don't really know its maintainer, Barry Warsaw, but the guy has both
>"@debian.org" and "@python.org" e-mail addresses[6], so he clearly
>knows about Debian packaging and the Python ecosystem itself way more
>than I do.
It's not always clear what to do. I have done packages that started with
python{3}- that also ship scripts in /usr/bin if the module was the primary
purpose of the package. I've also not used python{3}- for packages that have
module in dist-packages when the /usr/bin script/application was the main point.
In my opinion either can be correct depending on the primary purpose of the
package.
Scott K
>The problem with the item number "4" is that I never got it working as
>intended. So every time I have to create my own "/usr/bin/" scripts or
>symlinks, discarding those auto-generated entry point scripts.
>
>Regards,
>Tiago.
>
>[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide
>[2]: https://wiki.debian.org/Python/AppStyleGuide
>[3]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/python-tox
>[4]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/tox
>[5]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/all/tox/filelist
>[6]: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=barry
