I am resending the messages below to the Debian Python Team mailing list for further input. On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:36:15 PM Mountain Standard Time Soren Stoutner wrote: > On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:00:11 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian > Blank > > wrote: > > Please merge the two binary packages. There is no visible reason to > > split them, as they depend on each other and are small. > > I am a little confused. This package structure is what is typically used by > the Debian Python Team. > > 1. Pure Python modules are packaged as python3-foo, are part of the python > section, and install to /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages. > > 2. Executables are packaged separately, are part of the utils section, and > install to /usr/bin. > > The executables depend on the pure Python modules, but the pure Python > modules > do not depends on the executables (as is the case here). This is because > there are use cases where other program only need to depend on the pure > Python modules, but a user installing the executable will want both > packages. > > There are a lot of examples of this. Here are a few that I just pulled out, > but there are probably dozens or hundreds of examples. > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/electrum > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/alembic > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/beancount > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cssmin > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-dmm > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/flatlatex > > Are you saying that the standard way the Debian Python Team has been > packaging > programs should be changed? Bastian Blank responded to the above with the following: >On Saturday, November 8, 2025 5:59:27 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian Blank >wrote: > On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 02:36:15PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote: > > On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:00:11 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian > > Blank > > > > wrote: > > > Please merge the two binary packages. There is no visible reason to > > > split them, as they depend on each other and are small. > > > > The executables depend on the pure Python modules, but the pure Python > > modules do not depends on the executables (as is the case here). This is > > because there are use cases where other program only need to depend on the > > pure Python modules, but a user installing the executable will want both > > packages. > Please read our FAQ, it is listed under "Package split". > https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html > > Such one file packages are explicitly mentioned as usually not okay to > be split away. I am curious to get the team’s reaction to this. As far as I can tell, this represents a change in expectations from the FTP Masters. It is true that this is part of the FAQ, but there is long-standing practice of splitting such packages to maintain the Python naming conventions. Or, am I somehow mistaken about how it is expected that Python modules be packaged? -- Soren Stoutner soren@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.