Re: ITA: rpy2 -- Python3 interface to the GNU R language and environment (version 2)
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outdated upstream version, we wouldn't have been allowed to fix it under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,
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.
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.
Reply to: