On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 08:54:27PM +0100, Ondrej Novy wrote: > Hi, > > so 8. 2. 2020 v 20:51 odesílatel Gordon Ball <gor...@chronitis.net> napsal: > > > Perhaps this is worth making an explicit recommendation for new packages > > of this type, given that anything new _should_ be python3-only and we > > > > and what about pypy- prefix?
That's a good point. Probably not many packages are likely to provide pypy{,3} invoking binaries (ipython is probably actually a good candidate here) and so it probably counts as an exceptional case which can reasonably bypass a recommendation. I suppose you could: * Not ship any executables which invoke pypy. For pypy3, that appears to be the case today (nothing in /usr/bin using pypy3 except the interpreter itself). * Ship the library and python3 executable together (possibly with a Provides: for the executable), and the pypy3 executable in a separate package (since the library itself presumably doesn't want to depend on pypy3, and might need to depend on pypy-specific library packages). This saves 1 binary package but seems inconsistent. The actual implementation could be picked with update-alternatives. * Ship library, python3 executable and pypy3 executable separately. This seems more consistent but generates an extra binary package. This is probably a good case to consider in this thread because ipython and ipykernel are probably reasonable cases where a pypy-specialised executable might make sense, and ipython at least depends only on pure-python modules which work out-of-the-box with pypy. > > -- > Best regards > Ondřej Nový