[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Executables in pydl



Thank you all for your replies.

The executables are trival. They just wrap up functions that are already available in the libraries.
That is why I think they are not really needed.

@Thibaut: The names are get_juldate, hogg_iau_name, and compute_templates. I agree that the latter sounds quite generic, but the others are ok.

@Sergio: I have never used update-alternatives in a package. How does it work?

Cheers,

Vincent


Le 15/09/2016 à 17:01, Ole Streicher a écrit :
Vincent Prat <vinceprat@free.fr> writes:
I am currently working on packaging pydl, and the build system produces some
executables using entry points defined in setup.cfg.

The problem is that for each entry point, two executables are produced, one
for Python 2, and the other for Python 3, but with the same name and location
(/usr/bin), thus creating a conflict if both packages are installed.
I see several possibilities to solve the issue:
- remove these executables, since users could use directly the libraries
- rename them (e.g. compute_templates-python2 and -python3)
- mark the two packages as conflicting, but I do not think this is a good
idea.

What is your opinion?
At the end it depends on how important they are. From the package name,
I would think that they are not needed at all, so I would remove
them. If they are needed somehow, I would put them (in their python-3
variant) into a separate package, since from a python package, one would
usually not expect executables.

But ou may also ask on the Python mailing list, they may have more glue
about that :-)

Cheers

Ole




Reply to: