Re: Package name of src:fontmake

[Piotr Ożarowski]

[Paul Wise, 2018-01-28]
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> 
> > please also remember to install this private library into private (as
> > in: outside dist-packages) dir. You can do that with something like:
> 
> Is there or should there be a lintian warning about packages not named

I'd use an error instead of warning

> python{,3}-* containing public Python libraries?

I just checked https://lintian.debian.org/tags.html and I don't see such
tag. Any volunteers to provide one?
-- 
GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

Re: Package name of src:fontmake

[Paul Wise]

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:

> please also remember to install this private library into private (as
> in: outside dist-packages) dir. You can do that with something like:

Is there or should there be a lintian warning about packages not named
python{,3}-* containing public Python libraries?

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

Re: Package name of src:fontmake

[Piotr Ożarowski]

> >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.

please also remember to install this private library into private (as
in: outside dist-packages) dir. You can do that with something like:

 override_dh_auto_install:
dh_auto_install -- --install-args=--install-lib=/usr/share/fontmake/
mv debian/fontmake/usr/bin/fontmake 
debian/fontmake/usr/share/fontmake/run
dh_link /usr/share/fontmake/run /usr/bin/fontmake
-- 
GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

Re: Package name of src:fontmake

[Scott Kitterman]

On January 27, 2018 2:05:59 PM UTC, Yao Wei  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