Re: Upload request: psrecord (NEW)
On October 27, 2024 9:04:41 PM UTC, Peter Wienemann <wiene@debian.org> wrote:
>Hi Scott,
>
>On 2024-10-27 20:12:28, Peter Wienemann wrote:
>> On 2024-10-26 17:00:18, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> From reading this thread, it seems like psrecord is an application written in Python. Upstream could, if they felt like it, re-implement the whole thing in
>>> Rust and it would still be psrecord. Assuming that's at least generally
>>> correct, I think psrecord is definitely the correct package name.
>>
>> yes, I think this applies to psrecord.
>>
>>> The only exception is that applications which provide a publically available
>>> module/ extension that other programs can use should provide a binary which
>>> uses the python3-foo naming convention (see spf-engine as an example). It is
>>> a matter of taste and judgement for small applications that provide a public
>>> module/extension should ship the application in a separate binary package or
>>> not. Generally, tiny packages are bad because they require more overhead,
>>> including making the packages file bigger for every single user.
>>
>> In addition psrecord provides a public module (as per [0]) but I am inclined to consider this one of the "small application" cases which do not warrant a separate binary package.
>
>re-reading your message, I think I got it wrong in my above reply. Sorry for the confusion. I am trying to summarize to clarify the situation:
>
>Since psrecord ships both an executable and a public module (and it is small), the suggested package names are:
>
>- psrecord as source package name
>- python3-psrecord as binary package name (shipping executable and module)
>
>Alternative (but not recommended due to the smallness):
>
>- psrecord as source package name
>- python3-psrecord as binary package name (shipping the module)
>- psrecord as additional binary package name (shipping the executable).
>
>Is choosing psrecord as source package name still advisable in the above cases? Or is python-psrecord as source package name better for the executable+module case?
I think this is fine:
- psrecord as source package name
- python3-psrecord as binary package name
You can also have
Provides: psrecord
Then apt install psrecord will work.
Scott K
Reply to: