Re: ITA: rpy2 -- Python3 interface to the GNU R language and environment (version 2)
On 12 August 2025 at 13:36, Rebecca N. Palmer wrote:
| I've now started looking at this. (As the main issue is that it's an
| outdated upstream version, we wouldn't have been allowed to fix it under
| freeze.)
|
| > I'm planning to work on this, possibly in debian-science.
|
| Is the science team an appropriate place for this package, and if so,
If that is what you prefer, sure.
| what is the process for moving the repository from
| https://salsa.debian.org/edd/rpy2 to
| https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/rpy2 ? The GitLab documentation
| for moving repositories
| https://salsa.debian.org/help/user/project/import/_index.md#migrate-from-gitlab-to-gitlab-by-using-direct-transfer
| seems to be mostly about moving between servers, not moving between
| teams on the same server.
I don't know.
| The question of how many packages rpy2 3.6 is is complicated:
| - Still one upstream git repository (https://github.com/rpy2/rpy2).
| - Now 3 PyPI packages (both source and binary): rpy2 (which is
| near-empty), rpy2-rinterface, rpy2-robjects.
| - Still one Python package containing two submodules, rpy2.rinterface
| and rpy2.robjects. (The existence of these submodules is not new, only
| the fact that they are now separate PyPI packages.)
|
| Hence, the natural options are:
| (1) Keep this as one source package and one binary package, point
| d/watch to upstream git, call pybuild 3 times using the -d option
| https://sources.debian.org/src/dh-python/6.20250414/pybuild.rst/#L179
| Or, (2) split it into 3 source and 3 binary packages (Debian uses the
| import names
| https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/python-policy/#module-package-names
| so the new ones would be named python3-rpy2.rinterface,
| python3-rpy2.robjects), keep pointing d/watch to PyPi
|
| (2) allows a smaller install size for uses that only need
| rpy2.rinterface, which is one of upstream's stated reasons for the split
| (https://github.com/rpy2/rpy2/issues/1130), but codesearch suggests that
| Debian doesn't currently have any packages that would have such a
| dependency.
|
| I intend to try (1) first, but mostly because it doesn't require going
| through NEW; I am open to discussion of which we actually want.
Agreed. Happy to help. I am traveling this week so I may not get it before
early next week. But more than happy to assist with a Python packaging rejig
as this is a useful package that has been in Debian for a while.
Dirk
--
dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | edd@debian.org
Reply to: