1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. LINUX.DEBIAN.MAINT.PYTHON

  • python-pyinstaller: package naming questions

    From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to Debian Python on Fri Oct 25 13:07:53 2024
    This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

    --nextPart2461502.HlNqtGIUiK
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

    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
    [email protected]

    --nextPart2461502.HlNqtGIUiK
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"

    <html>
    <head>
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
    </head>
    <body><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">I am in the process of packaging python-pyinstaller.</p>
    <p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;"><br />https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1084906</p>
    <br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">Currently my source package is named python-pyinstaller.&nbsp; It produces two binary packages:</p>
    <br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">pyinstaller - installs executables to /usr/bin</p>
    <p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;margin-left:0;margin-right:0;">python3-pyinstaller - installs Python modules to /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages</p>
    <br /><p style="margin-top:0;margin-
  • From Soren Stoutner@21:1/5 to Debian Python on Thu Oct 31 14:26:40 2024
    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
    [email protected]
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

    iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEJKVN2yNUZnlcqOI+wufLJ66wtgMFAmcj9hAACgkQwufLJ66w tgPycRAAoWCZPLl2mfgdg19UI4AzCru6NklAX/lfuZ0CtdCPHe4BvAqnhaD98IrC UlYgMVQENHJ0JZ6IzyDV3aD+6mnW4cqF+ebY0ObuAQYyoICACc9F50KO/mO+ab6w TYy6pDcD1b5dqRr3U5PX8qqT/8jUyns5GkrmyYEBGM9xgiP925RUndvPxfQ0dEog /pj/e159oQDyAkfe6kUk4U2nOMD0YUkMX4a+8Z6ocfZ74NmXYaJuJ1zYoJ7qolUs eNeisFcQ1O05jVoom+rHkaIYYUQKNcAbBIPWfUVN/mdLUNNLHKAInLYYTTqesEdz mOjX5nZek1scjIlE5TS3heK9LvbTLPfg32a4lVfu+wtunubr5WkIrqEvD2Z6yIig WdLdCx6zIrm4pKpx2RAvM8C5vZ3uLzKlD6UmPcPtyHRVql/Qvmvc2cCjdfWeLaW6 qDjF1Lc0ZzkzXZSJHDNJCQpPvIf4+ACQ0F08N+cPL84vD5utsS/rsjWAhQiKFDOg fz6M5HVWJPr91Lj9MWlI4V9JQVQ+uaTuS05WWuxSVPG3e9KCN3ZulPAl/QamiOt+ SbicwCQSAqNIcvxFtkcB4Cy6IH1Q4B+z4vEBunWwnqkJTbZzQ9CDvQcDAwaRFZ3Z fOYv5WN72GDPfhNDuS28LSoOo93Dmu4CKuz5aulFzdnMMC17GxM=
    =SYN/
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)