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

Re: .py endings or no .py endings for scientific packages

Le Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 01:48:17PM +0200, Steffen Möller a écrit :
> I just updated cnvkit locally and found Michael's patch "Remove .py
> extensions as per Debian policy". I personally came to the conclusion
> that differences to upstream in the naming of binaries is detrimental
> for the acceptance of our distribution in the scientific community.
> Just, nobody wants to risk to have their larger scripts/workflows fail
> at some point because Debian does its own thing.
> For cnvkit it seems particular unfortunate since conda already
> distributes it. And they with some good confidence do not care about .py
> suffices. So incompatibilities with the community at larger would be
> guaranteed. If we truly care about the removal of .py suffices then we
> should attempt to convince upstream about it.

Hi Steffen and everybody,

I think that deviating from upstream file names is a disservice to our
users.  In my experience, people who push the hardest for the renaming
are people who have no stakes in the package itself.  I failed to get
the Policy changed on that topic, but my personal opinion would be to
disregard it until the technical committee would armtwist us to hurt our
users (or open the way to a Policy change).

The disservice is not hypothethical.  I advertised a Debian package to a
colleague, and he came back to me saying that the scripts made by
another colleague did not work... Indeed the other colleague was not
using Debian, and therefore was compatible with Upstream and the rest of
the world...

Have a nice week-end,


Reply to: