Hi Scott,
On 2024-10-26 17:00:18, Scott Kitterman wrote:
From reading this thread, it seems like psrecord is an application written in
Python. Upstream could, if they felt like it, re-implement the whole thing in
Rust and it would still be psrecord. Assuming that's at least generally
correct, I think psrecord is definitely the correct package name.
yes, I think this applies to psrecord.
The only exception is that applications which provide a publically available
module/ extension that other programs can use should provide a binary which
uses the python3-foo naming convention (see spf-engine as an example). It is
a matter of taste and judgement for small applications that provide a public
module/extension should ship the application in a separate binary package or
not. Generally, tiny packages are bad because they require more overhead,
including making the packages file bigger for every single user.
In addition psrecord provides a public module (as per [0]) but I am
inclined to consider this one of the "small application" cases which do
not warrant a separate binary package.
Best regards,
Peter
[0] https://peps.python.org/pep-0008/#public-and-internal-interfaces
