I didn’t receive any responses to the below email, so I decided to go with pyinstaller as the source package name, but to still use two binary packages: pyinstaller and python3-pyinstaller.
On Friday, October 25, 2024 1:07:53 PM MST Soren Stoutner wrote: > I am in the process of packaging python-pyinstaller. > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084906 > > Currently my source package is named python-pyinstaller. It produces two > binary packages: > > pyinstaller - installs executables to /usr/bin > python3-pyinstaller - installs Python modules to > /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages > > I have been following the discussion about package names and have started to > wonder if pyinstaller wouldn’t be a better source package name. That is what > it is called upstream, and the “py” prefix already indicates it is related to > Python. > > Beyond that, I was wondering if it wouldn’t be better to only provide one > binary file. I don’t know if there is any value to the Python modules > without the executables in /usr/bin. Is there any policy or best practice > that says this should be split into two binary packages? > > Soren > > P.S. I figured I would ask now as it is easy to make changes before the first > upload. -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
