Hello Fred,

On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:15:00 -0400
Fred Drake <f...@fdrake.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Alexander Gerasiov <g...@cs.msu.su>
> wrote:
> > Every plugin is just a small parser class which is called from
> > ofxstatement, parses input file and pass data back to main app.
> > These plugins are developed independently by various people who
> > publish them in separate repositories (mostly on github).
> The high point I picked up here is that each plugin has it's own
> lifecycle, controlled by independent developers.
Most of them do not have real lifecycle, but exists on the scheme "bank
modified format -> author updated parser", so most the time we do not
need outdated version, but want fresh "snapshot" of actual plugins

> > I decided to package ofxstatement as separate package, but put all
> > plugins in one package oxfstatement-plugins.
> >
> > I'm not skilled in distributing python apps and packaging python
> > apps into .deb, so I'd like to get some review and feedback from the
> > community before upload to archive.
> Grouping the plugins like this seems odd to me, because of the
> independent lifecycles.  Perhaps something to consider is to create
> separate debian packages for each (with names like
> ofxstatement-plugin-abcdef), and maybe a convenience meta-package that
> depends on some set of the plugin packages (ofxstatement-plugins).
There are ~20 plugins, each of them have a pair of small files (and
heap of python's stuff). Better put them all in one binary package, I

In such case we save some archive space and much maintainer's time.

Best regards,
 Alexander Gerasiov

 e-mail: g...@cs.msu.su  Homepage: http://gerasiov.net  Skype: gerasiov
 PGP fingerprint: 04B5 9D90 DF7C C2AB CD49  BAEA CA87 E9E8 2AAC 33F1

Reply via email to