Re: How to package a binary provided by python2 and python3
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 10:21 PM, Etienne Millon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The best practice is indeed to discard the binary in one of the
> packages, like your solution 1. However, it is better to use the
> python3 version (this is the recommended way now, can't find the
> debian-python thread from earlier this year).
Probably this mail:
While reading through the archives I also found this one, which
basically asks the same question as I do:
> If most of your users will use only the binary, they shouldn't have to
> know that it's written in python, so you can add an extra binary
> package that only ships the binary. In this case, you can also do it
> using a virtual package (just add a Provides: fiona to python3-fiona
> for example) but I think that it is clearer with a real package.
> You can see examples on two of my packages: guessit (first case,
> binary in python3-guessit) and subliminal (second case, binary in
Thanks for the examples. I think I will follow the subliminal example.
I like to have a separate package with a proper short+long
description, since the binaries can be used by people who shouldn't
need to know that the tool is using python.
I'm reading up on alternatives (which as Frank mentioned indeed also
is a possiblesollution), but I don't think it is possible to write a
description for the binary there. In that case I would prefer a