On February 7, 2020 3:59:46 PM UTC, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:36:00AM +, 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 on
On Fri, Feb 07, 2020 at 11:36:00AM +, 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 dr
Hi,
it depends :). My two cents:
If you are packaging application (PAPT team):
* user is using it in CLI / Xorg
* user don't need to know it's written in Python
* Python modules are typically private, not usable by other
applications/libraries
-> one binary package: foo
If you are packaging libr
The library style guide [1] says under _Executables and library
packages_:
> Here are some recommendations. We do not have a standard (though maybe
> we should)
regarding whether a library with an associated executable should be
split across `foo` and `python3-foo` or just bundled into `python3-f
4 matches
Mail list logo
