Hi Tiago, On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 11:37:24PM -0300, Tiago Ilieve wrote: > Thanks for taking the time to explain me this, but actually I got a > little bit confused. Because yes, what you said is consistent with > what I found on articles about Python packaging on wiki.d.o[1][2], but > at the same time there are well-known packages in the archive that > contradicts this, specially the item "3". > > The package that I used as an example is tox. It used to be called > "python-tox", which is now a transitional dummy package[3]. Now is > named "tox"[4], because it is intended to be used as a CLI > application, but at the same time it ships its files in > "dist-packages"[5]. There are always exceptions of course. If the primary use of your package is its command-line interface, and you don't expect other packages in Debian to use its Python API, then shipping everything in one package called grip is probably fine. > I followed the tox example and named the package "grip", not > "python-grip", because I'm standing on the shoulders of giants here. I > don't really know its maintainer, Barry Warsaw, but the guy has both > "@debian.org" and "@python.org" e-mail addresses[6], so he clearly > knows about Debian packaging and the Python ecosystem itself way more > than I do. > > The problem with the item number "4" is that I never got it working as > intended. So every time I have to create my own "/usr/bin/" scripts or > symlinks, discarding those auto-generated entry point scripts. If upstream entry points don't work, then having your own ones is fine. Though in my experience upstream entry points for public packages usually worked. -- Dmitry Shachnev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature