On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:36:00AM +0000, Gordon Ball wrote: > I wonder if this split really makes sense; it feels like adding the > overhead of an extra binary package to avoid not having a very small > file in /usr/bin if you're only planning to use the library. > > Does it seem reasonable to drop the executable package and just make it > a Provides: of the library package? (and is there any potential breakage > here that I'm overlooking)
Maybe not for ipython3, since that's very much tied to python3-ipython3.
BUT, as a user (even forgetting I'm also a DD) I was hurt many times by
executables in python-foo but wanting to use python3-foo instead, or by
executables that moved from python-foo to python3-foo and I had to fix
my own deployments, and whatnot.
We are not going to have a python4 anytime soon (hopefully never), but I
think that keeping a separate binary package makes sense for almost all
cases I can think of packages shipping executables under /usr/bin/.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
More about me: https://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
