On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 09:07:09PM +0100, Ghislain Vaillant wrote:
> So what you guys are proposing is to introduce a new wrapper script, in
> its own binary package, whose name is not endorsed by upstream, and
> which will end-up completely Debian specific.
>
> Am I really the only one in this te
On Sun, 2017-04-16 at 18:09 +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:50:54PM +0200, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> > I introduced an additional binary package for this script because I thought
> > people cold have found it useful. But, right, everything considered I should
> > better drop
Hi,
2017-04-16 18:09 GMT+02:00 Mattia Rizzolo :
> Surely I'm not the only one who would consider moving the file back to
> python3-cpuinfo a step backward…
>
ack. I like solo binary package for /usr/bin/* tools too.
--
Best regards
Ondřej Nový
Email: n...@ondrej.org
PGP: 3D98 3C52 EB85 980C
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 05:50:54PM +0200, Hugo Lefeuvre wrote:
> I introduced an additional binary package for this script because I thought
> people cold have found it useful. But, right, everything considered I should
> better drop it.
Wait a second before dropping this..
What would be the down
Hi,
> Also, the `cpuinfo` utility can be invoked with `python[3] -m cpuinfo`
> according to the upstream README [1]. So, I am not convinced of the benefit
> of introducing an additional binary package (py-cpuinfo) for something the
> library packages already provide.
I introduced an additional bi
Also, the `cpuinfo` utility can be invoked with `python[3] -m cpuinfo`
according to the upstream README [1]. So, I am not convinced of the
benefit of introducing an additional binary package (py-cpuinfo) for
something the library packages already provide.
[1] https://github.com/workhorsy/py-cp
well, the py- prefix seems wrong as well (and not part of the recommendation)
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Ondrej Novy wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> 2017-04-14 20:25 GMT+02:00 Sandro Tosi :
>>
>> why the cli tools are in a separate packages, instead of being inside
>> the py3k package (as it seems to su
Hi,
2017-04-14 20:25 GMT+02:00 Sandro Tosi :
> why the cli tools are in a separate packages, instead of being inside
> the py3k package (as it seems to suggest it uses the python3
> module to work)?
>
because it's one of our team recommendation:
https://wiki.debian.org/Python/LibraryStyleGuide#
8 matches
Mail list logo
