On Saturday, October 26, 2024 7:26:48 AM EDT Alexandru Mihail wrote: > > Package name > > ============ > > I saw that you started with psrecord as source package name and > > tijuca > > suggested to use python-psrecord in [0]. After looking into the > > package, > > my personal preference is to switch back to psrecord as source > > package > > name since in my view the main task of the package is to provide a > > psrecord executable and I consider the fact that it is written in > > Python > > an implementation detail. This is basically the situation mentioned > > by > > stefanor in [1]. Therefore my proposal is to use psrecord for both > > the > > source and the binary package name. > > > > I understand that this is an unfortunate situation for you since one > > person suggests to do A and another person suggests to do B. > > Therefore I > > propose to wait a bit and see what other people think about this. > > More > > opinions are much appreciated - in particular in view of recent > > discussions about namespacing Python packages. > > Yes, indeed after first reading DPT conventions, I also concluded the > best source/binary pkg name combo would be plain psrecord. I'll wait a > bit more, suggestions are very much welcome. If nothing relevant > happens in the meantime (both in this thread or more general > discussions) I will move the whole repo again to salsa/dpt/psrecord. > This little tool is quite useful and I'd hate for it to be stuck in > limbo for too long.
Some additional background on this: In the before times, what is now the Debian Python Team was two teams: Debian Python Modules Team (DPMT) Python Applications Packaging Team (PAPT). DPMT packaged Python modules and extensions and the binary package naming rules (that are at least informally extended to source package names now) applied. PAPT packaged applications written in Python and these naming rules did not apply. Part of the reason why they were separate is that there are some things about packaging applications that are different. This is one of them. It is an unfortunate side effect of the team's merger that this distinction has been somewhat lost. >From reading this thread, it seems like psrecord is an application written in Python. Upstream could, if they felt like it, re-implement the whole thing in Rust and it would still be psrecord. Assuming that's at least generally correct, I think psrecord is definitely the correct package name. The only exception is that applications which provide a publically available module/ extension that other programs can use should provide a binary which uses the python3-foo naming convention (see spf-engine as an example). It is a matter of taste and judgement for small applications that provide a public module/extension should ship the application in a separate binary package or not. Generally, tiny packages are bad because they require more overhead, including making the packages file bigger for every single user. It would be good if you would review the existing DPT documentation (particularly the policy) with this in mind and see if you have suggestions to make it clearer. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
