On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:12:11PM -0400, Sandro Tosi wrote: > are we really suggesting to create a separate binary package, for a > single script, not even 400 bytes (in py-cpuinfo case, but i bet there > are more just like this), mainly boilerplate, that simply loads the > entrypoint from the main module and nothing else?
I think quite a lot of cases are better off without any /usr/bin/foo
installed, and have the user just call it with `python[3] -m foo`
instead.
It's up to the maintainer, of course.
But otherwise yes, I think a separated package is better.
I'm just thinking about how annoying is now changing the /usr/bin/foo
from the python2 to the python3 package, and in the meantime stuff
started to (build-)depend on it only for the /usr/bin/foo, stuff which
may or may not be easy to detect... This is just a case.
> that seems overkill
> to me (and probably not only to me, given how much discussion there
> was on d-devel about small node packages)
Well, to me it seems we either resigned about this situation, or stopped
cared, considering how many node packages appeared in the last months
without any pointless flame about it (personally, I resigned for now).
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
