On January 27, 2018 2:05:59 PM UTC, Yao Wei <m...@lxde.org> wrote: >Hi, > >We at Fonts Team are packaging utilities for building fonts from >Glyphs.app and UFO format to OTF/TTF, and we are trying to align our >package to Python Policy. > >The packaging effort is in Salsa: >https://salsa.debian.org/fonts-team/fontmake > >We feel unsettled of the binary package naming. Should it be: > > * "fontmake" single package > * "python3-fontmake" single package > * "fontmake" package for /usr/bin and "python3-fontmake" package > elsewhere? > >My personal intepretation is that since this package is not used as >python library this should be "fontmake" single package, but we need >someone from Python Teams to confirm that.
I think that makes sense. You have to make a judgement call about the primary purpose of the package. If it's primarily an application and any python modules in the package are only for use of the application, then sticking with the upstream name is a sensible choice. Scott K
