Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-17 Thread Thomas Goirand
On 04/17/2017 06:20 PM, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > 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...

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-17 Thread Scott Kitterman
On April 17, 2017 12:20:36 PM EDT, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: >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

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-17 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
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

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-17 Thread Sandro Tosi
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? that seems overkill to me (and probably

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-17 Thread Dmitry Shachnev
Hi Mattia, On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 10:50:15PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > > AFAIC, I happily use pytest or sphinx via their respective python[3]- > > pytest > > There is a peculiar thing about pytest: the version of python used > matters. That's different than most python /usr/bin/* things. >

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:07:09PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote: > So what you guys are proposing is to introduce a new wrapper script, in > its own binary package, whose name is not endorsed by upstream, and > which will end-up completely Debian specific. > > Am I really the only one in this

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
On Sun, 2017-04-16 at 18:09 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:50:54PM +0200, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > > I introduced an additional binary package for this script because I thought > > people cold have found it useful. But, right, everything considered I should > > better drop

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Ondrej Novy
Hi, 2017-04-16 18:09 GMT+02:00 Mattia Rizzolo : > Surely I'm not the only one who would consider moving the file back to > python3-cpuinfo a step backward… > ack. I like solo binary package for /usr/bin/* tools too. -- Best regards Ondřej Nový Email: n...@ondrej.org PGP:

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Mattia Rizzolo
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:50:54PM +0200, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > I introduced an additional binary package for this script because I thought > people cold have found it useful. But, right, everything considered I should > better drop it. Wait a second before dropping this.. What would be the

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Hugo Lefeuvre
Hi, > Also, the `cpuinfo` utility can be invoked with `python[3] -m cpuinfo` > according to the upstream README [1]. So, I am not convinced of the benefit > of introducing an additional binary package (py-cpuinfo) for something the > library packages already provide. I introduced an additional

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Ghislain Vaillant
Also, the `cpuinfo` utility can be invoked with `python[3] -m cpuinfo` according to the upstream README [1]. So, I am not convinced of the benefit of introducing an additional binary package (py-cpuinfo) for something the library packages already provide. [1]

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Sandro Tosi
well, the py- prefix seems wrong as well (and not part of the recommendation) On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > > 2017-04-14 20:25 GMT+02:00 Sandro Tosi : >> >> why the cli tools are in a separate packages, instead of being inside >>

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-16 Thread Ondrej Novy
Hi, 2017-04-14 20:25 GMT+02:00 Sandro Tosi : > why the cli tools are in a separate packages, instead of being inside > the py3k package (as it seems to suggest it uses the python3 > module to work)? > because it's one of our team recommendation:

Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1

2017-04-14 Thread Sandro Tosi
On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote: > +Package: py-cpuinfo > +Architecture: all > +Depends: python3-cpuinfo, > + ${misc:Depends}, > + ${python3:Depends} > +Description: Python script for getting CPU info > + py-cpuinfo provides a