Re: Existing package splits into dependent subpackages -- best packaging practice ?
Hi Emanuel,
Thanks for the prompt reply!
On 18 February 2025 at 18:18, Emmanuel Arias wrote:
| Hi!
| On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 01:54:19PM -0600, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
| >
| > Hi all,
| >
| > I have long maintained rpy2 (and rpy before) which provides a bridge from
| > Python to R (which I tend to care more for), and am on friendly terms with
| > its author. You can see my repo at salsa [1], it is pretty vanilla.
| >
| > The upcoming upstream release will split into three packages, all in the same
| > source repo [2]. I am a casual Python user, and not all into packaging there
| > (source or for Debian). But I can wondering that this arrangement must exist
| > elsewhere. Is there a good pattern I can borrow to build (and then install ?)
| > rpy2-interfaces to then build (and install ?) rpy2-objects to then build
| > rpy2?
| >
| Seems very similar to basemap[0]
|
| [0] https://sources.debian.org/src/basemap/1.4.1-1/
I may have been unclear in what I was looking for. If I read this correctly,
then it "bends" the upstreeam layout to effectively undo the package split?
I was thinking more along the lines of 'how do I create three binary Python
packages that are interdependent from one source repo'. Is that doable?
Dirk
| > Python users see these as independent as they are in three different PyPI
| > packages.
| >
| > Is there a best or recommended way to approach this? CCs welcome, I am not
| > subscribed to debian-python.
| >
| > Cheers, Dirk
| >
| >
| > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/edd/rpy2
| > [2] https://github.com/rpy2/rpy2
| > --
| > dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
|
| --
| cheers,
| Emmanuel Arias
|
| ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
| ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ eamanu@debian.org
| ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1
| ⠈⠳⣄
| x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature]
--
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: