Re: [Python-modules-commits] [python-cpuinfo] 02/02: Import Debian changes 3.0.0-1
On Sun, 2017-04-16 at 18:09 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:50:54PM +0200, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> > I introduced an additional binary package for this script because I thought
> > people cold have found it useful. But, right, everything considered I should
> > better drop it.
>
> Wait a second before dropping this..
>
> What would be the downside of having it in a separate package? I
> concur that the "py-" prefix strikes as odd, but I otherwise generally
> recommend keeping /usr/bin/* stuff out of python-* packages, while
> keeping in the latter only the python module, for a bunch of reasons.
Let me quote that upstream README for you:
```
Run as a script
$ python cpuinfo/cpuinfo.py
Run as a module
$ python -m cpuinfo
Run as a library
import cpuinfo
info = cpuinfo.get_cpu_info()
print(info)
```
Nowhere is there mentioned a `py-cpuinfo` executable. The instructions
given upstream for command-line usage are via a separate wrapper script
named `cpuinfo.py` or a module call.
In fact, if you install `py-cpuinfo` in a venv:
```
python3 -m venv py-cpuinfo
source py-cpuinfo/bin/active
pip install py-cpuinfo
ls py-cpuinfo/bin/
``
You will only find an entry-point called `cpuinfo`.
So what you guys are proposing is to introduce a new wrapper script, in
its own binary package, whose name is not endorsed by upstream, and
which will end-up completely Debian specific.
Am I really the only one in this team to think this proposal is a
complete non-sense?
> Surely I'm not the only one who would consider moving the file back to
> python3-cpuinfo a step backward…
I fail to understand how your anti-Python-3 feelings add anything
constructive to this thread. Moving on.
AFAIC, I happily use pytest or sphinx via their respective python[3]-
pytest and python[3]-sphinx. I don't consider the lack of a dedicated
pytest or sphinx binary package a step backward.
Regards,
Ghis
Reply to: