On Saturday, April 25, 2015 03:42:29 PM Tomasz Buchert wrote: > Hi guys, > I'm preparing a package for this library: > https://bitbucket.org/bgneal/enigma/ It's rather trivial (see > alioth:/git/collab-maint/python-enigma.git), but I have two questions that > remain: > > * the library provides a program as /usr/bin/pyenigma.py; should I: > (a) declare another binary package (say, pyenigma) with it and > make it depend on python3-enigma or (b) leave it as it is now, a > part of the library? > (a) seems like a more canonical solution, but (b) looks more > practical since I doubt that people will very rarely use pyenigma > on its own
You can do it either way, but in this case, for the reasons you state and because every new binary package has archive wide impacts, I think (b) is more appropriate. > * lintian complains about .py exntesion in a binary stored in > /usr/bin/; should I absolutely change it to no extension? it's > trivial to do, but the instructions at > https://bitbucket.org/bgneal/enigma/ will be misleading People will have different opinions on this. The point of not having the language extension on there is so that if something gets re-implemented in a different language, the name doesn't change. For this particular case, since being pythonic is part of the point, I think it's not applicable. If it were me, I'd leave it and override the lintian warning. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
