Re: Separate lib and executable packages?
On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:54:27PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> so 8. 2. 2020 v 20:51 odesílatel Gordon Ball <gordon@chronitis.net> napsal:
>
> > Perhaps this is worth making an explicit recommendation for new packages
> > of this type, given that anything new _should_ be python3-only and we
> >
>
> and what about pypy- prefix?
That's a good point.
Probably not many packages are likely to provide pypy{,3} invoking binaries
(ipython is probably actually a good candidate here) and so it probably
counts as an exceptional case which can reasonably bypass a recommendation.
I suppose you could:
* Not ship any executables which invoke pypy. For pypy3, that appears
to be the case today (nothing in /usr/bin using pypy3 except the
interpreter itself).
* Ship the library and python3 executable together (possibly with a
Provides: for the executable), and the pypy3 executable in a
separate package (since the library itself presumably
doesn't want to depend on pypy3, and might need to depend on
pypy-specific library packages). This saves 1 binary package but
seems inconsistent. The actual implementation could be picked with
update-alternatives.
* Ship library, python3 executable and pypy3 executable separately.
This seems more consistent but generates an extra binary package.
This is probably a good case to consider in this thread because ipython
and ipykernel are probably reasonable cases where a pypy-specialised
executable might make sense, and ipython at least depends only on
pure-python modules which work out-of-the-box with pypy.
>
> --
> Best regards
> Ondřej Nový
Reply to: