Re: Python Policy

[Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org>]

[Barry Warsaw, 2015-10-20]
> On Oct 19, 2015, at 09:04 PM, Piotr Ożarowski wrote:
> 
> >Debian Python Policy¹ is something every single packages that extends
> >Python should follow. There are many teams (more than 4) each of them
> >can have their own policy that extends DPP.
> 
> This is an important distinction that I don't think is really captured
> anywhere.  Let me rephrase it to see if I'm capturing your sentiment.
> 
> There is Debian Python Policy which describes the standards for publishing
> Python libraries and applications within the Debian archive.  It is a Debian
> Project-wide standard, irrespective of which team, if any, is maintaining the
> Python package.
> 
> There is the DPMT, a team for co-maintaining Python libraries.  It has its own
> policy document for how those libraries are maintained, and adheres to DPP for
> publishing those libraries in the archive.

correct

> There is the PAPT, a team for co-maintaining Python applications.  While there
> may be overlap with DPMT (e.g. some upstream packages provide both libraries
> and applications), PAPT has its own policy document for how those applications
> are maintained, and adheres to DPP for publishing those applications in the
> archive.

just to make it even clearer: if package provides a tiny script that
uses library, it should go to DPMT. If package provides an app and a
tiny library (I'm thinking about real library, not just those where
maintainer forgot to set --install-lib correctly and installs app into
dist-packages) - it's a PAPT candidate.

--install-lib is the main difference between DPMT and PAPT. There are
different set of problems when you install into dist-packages and outside
this directory.
-- 
Piotr Ożarowski                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
www.ozarowski.pl          www.griffith.cc           www.debian.org
GPG Fingerprint: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645