On 15.12.2016 16:00, Barry Warsaw wrote: > I think one of the problems is that while in Debian, pkg_resources and > setuptools are separate binary packages, it's not entirely clear to me that > upstream views them as different packages. After all, they are Python > packages distributed in the same git repo and tarball. Debian's separation of > them is a bit artificial. > > You could solve this by promoting *-pkg-resources Suggests of *-setuptools to > a Depends, but that sets up a circular package dependency since *-setuptools > Depend on *-pkg-resources. In a sense I think that reflects the bootstrapping > issues raised by upstream in GH#863. > > Does it ever make sense to install pkg_resources and not install setuptools? > I'm not so sure, but collapsing them at this point is probably more intrusive > than what we want. Another option would be to create new meta packages which > Depend on both *-pkg_resources and *-setuptools and encourage people to Depend > on that.
yes, or else we really should merge gcc and libgcc into one package ... And I'm not forcing anyone to remove all their reverse deps on pkg_resources if they don't want to build with setuptools. > Ultimately for this specific case, I think it's just easier if dput added a > Depends on python-setuptools. https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/issues/863 disagreed, dput should just remove setuptools from the requires.
