Hey,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 04:41:18PM +0000, Chris Lamb wrote:
> > And then there is rst2pdf (Chris Lamb) which does the all-in-one thing
> > in a single eponymous .deb.
> [..]
> > Since I care about consistency, I’d like to get this sorted out. My
> > personal preference would be “python-docutils-X”: it’s short,
> > reasonably precise and explanatory.
>
> Hm, I do like your proposed naming scheme, but the current package name
> seems to be more explanatory than "python-docutils-pdf", and the foo2bar
> naming scheme has some history in the PostScript world. I guess this all
> depends on your level of abstraction.
Indeed. And I’m not sure whether the writer modules should be
considered private (most users aren’t interested in the whole module
business and only want to use rst2*) or public (they can be imported
directly by any Python script). In the latter case, Python Policy
would apply (2.2 “Module Package Names”).
> I wonder whether having two packages would be overkill? eg.
>
> Package: python-docutils-pdf
> Depends: python-reportlab, [..]
> Contains the library.
>
> Package: rst2pdf
> Depends: python-docutils-pdf (= ${binary:Version}, [..]
> Contains /usr/bin/rst2pdf, manpage, etc.
I’ve considered this, of course, but I don’t know if this is really the
right thing to do given the frontend’s size (3 kiB in my case). And
then, the most recent version of odtwriter also includes a directory
called odpwriter to write presentation files. If I split this up
cleanly, I’d end up with four small binary packages (plus a transitional
dummy one if there is renaming). I’m not sure whether this is
desirable.
Best regards,
--
Michael Schutte <michi@uiae.at>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature