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

Re: wheel support for Debian?



Am 16.05.2014 00:32, schrieb Barry Warsaw:
> My thoughts...
> 
> On May 16, 2014, at 12:07 AM, Matthias Klose wrote:
> 
>> - should we add wheels everywhere? I don't think we should,
>>   but I'd like to state this somewhere, like in the python policy.
> 
> Agreed, we should not add wheels everywhere.  I would like to keep it very
> limited to exactly the (small) set of packages we need to devendorize
> ensurepip, recursively.  If some other devendorizing task in the future
> requires the use of wheels, then we have a framework in place, but I would
> like to actively discourage their use.
> 
> I do plan to propose an update to policy stating this, but I haven't gotten to
> that yet.  I will of course post the proposed update here first.
> 
>> - where to put wheels?  /usr/share/python-wheels is an ad-hoc
>>   decision which was never proposed. I'm aware about "universal"
>>   wheels but I'd like to clarify where wheels should be located.
>>   Do we need /usr/share/python/wheels, and/or /usr/share/python3/wheels?
> 
> I proposed /usr/share/python-wheels here:
> 
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2014/05/msg00025.html
> 
> but it's a detail that was probably easily lost in the wall of text.  I didn't
> see any objections to that specifically though.  We could change it if
> something clearly better is proposed, although it would necessitate some new
> uploads and updated quilt patches.
> 
> For the current use case, we only need pure-Python wheels, and in fact Python
> can't currently import extension modules from zips, so architecture dependent
> wheels wouldn't work anyway.  Universal wheels (Python 2 and 3 compatible) are
> used because that's what the ensurepip machinery already uses.  it's just as
> easy to create universal wheels, and all the packages we currently care about
> *are* bilingual, so using them here reduces the upstream delta.  Since I don't
> view the building of wheel packages as general purpose, I think it's fine to
> just put them in a shared directory.
> 
> In other words, non-universal wheels YAGNI.

I would like to avoid different wheel directories in /usr/share, so if the name
of the wheel encodes the python version, then they probably can live in the same
directory.

The plural for the dir name goes along with the one for "-packages" for python
packages.

>> - naming of wheel packages.  It's good to see wheels packaged
>>   in a separate binary package. However there is no proposal
>>   how to name these packages.
> 
> That was also proposed in the above referenced message.  Suggestions welcome,
> but I think python-foo-wheels is as good as anything (it's pretty
> self-descriptive ;).

The GNUstep apps are packaged as .app, so why not use .wheel? then even

  python-wheel.wheel

becomes clear ... and it's the singular.

  Matthias


Reply to: