Re: suffix for packages with (optional?) Python extensions

[Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>]

On Monday, July 16, 2012 11:06:59 AM Yaroslav Halchenko wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > OK.  python-nipy depends on python-nipy-lib.  Makes sense.
> > 
> > Is python-nipy-lib useful on it's own?
> 
> nope -- moreover it might be somewhat  detrimental -- module might
> appear to be "installed" while only extensions are there.  That is the
> only disadvantage of such an approach.
> 
> > It seems odd to me that it doesn't at
> > least Suggest python-nipy.
> 
> and that is where I think circular dependencies are coming -- although I
> do not remember details and why I haven't had Suggest -- it clearly
> worth adding -- may be it is ok now ;-) ?

I think it is worth getting consensus on how this should be done before you 
make a change.

I think at least suggests, but I think recommends is better if it doesn't 
behave as a dependency loop.  I haven't looked into how this gets handled yet.  
Anyone?

Scott K