Re: Packaging multiple python modules in one Debian package
Hello Fred,
On Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:15:00 -0400
Fred Drake <fred@fdrake.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Alexander Gerasiov <gq@cs.msu.su>
> wrote:
> > Every plugin is just a small parser class which is called from
> > ofxstatement, parses input file and pass data back to main app.
> > These plugins are developed independently by various people who
> > publish them in separate repositories (mostly on github).
>
> The high point I picked up here is that each plugin has it's own
> lifecycle, controlled by independent developers.
Most of them do not have real lifecycle, but exists on the scheme "bank
modified format -> author updated parser", so most the time we do not
need outdated version, but want fresh "snapshot" of actual plugins
versions.
>
> > I decided to package ofxstatement as separate package, but put all
> > plugins in one package oxfstatement-plugins.
> >
> > I'm not skilled in distributing python apps and packaging python
> > apps into .deb, so I'd like to get some review and feedback from the
> > community before upload to archive.
>
> Grouping the plugins like this seems odd to me, because of the
> independent lifecycles. Perhaps something to consider is to create
> separate debian packages for each (with names like
> ofxstatement-plugin-abcdef), and maybe a convenience meta-package that
> depends on some set of the plugin packages (ofxstatement-plugins).
There are ~20 plugins, each of them have a pair of small files (and
heap of python's stuff). Better put them all in one binary package, I
believe.
In such case we save some archive space and much maintainer's time.
--
Best regards,
Alexander Gerasiov
Contacts:
e-mail: gq@cs.msu.su Homepage: http://gerasiov.net Skype: gerasiov
PGP fingerprint: 04B5 9D90 DF7C C2AB CD49 BAEA CA87 E9E8 2AAC 33F1
Reply to: