Carsten, On Friday, October 4, 2024 8:09:14 AM MST Carsten Schoenert wrote: > Am 03.10.24 um 07:10 schrieb Soren Stoutner: > > Sandro, > > > > I have just taken over maintenance of python-trezor and would like to > > rectify > > this problem. As I have never renamed a python binary package, I would like > > to make sure I handle it correctly. > > > > I can see the package is indeed installed into > > /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/ trezorlib, which appears to be inline with > > the upstream source code (/src/ trezorlib). > > > > I assume that fixing this involves changing the name of the binary package > > from “python3-trezor” to “python3-trezorlib”. > > why do you think this is needed? > I don't see any reason to do so. Keep it as it is.
When I adopted this package, there was an existing bug report [1] claiming that the existing binary package name needs to be changed to comply with Python Policy. The bug report doesn’t explain exactly what aspect doesn’t comply with the policy, but I assume it comes down to python3-trezor installing to the following two directories, which have disparate names: /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/trezorlib/ /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages/trezor-0.13.9.egg-info/ If this isn’t a policy violation I am in favor of leaving the package name as is, which is why I copied my response to the debian-python list. > Upstream is using the name 'trezor' as package name and we should not > derive from that if not really strong reasons are given to do this. > Again I even don't see any more light reasons to do this renaming. Upstream seems to use both trezor and trezorlib, with the PyPI package named trezor while the files are installed to trezorlib. Perhaps that is a problem that upstream should address. I would appreciate any guidance on the best way to proceed with the Debian packaging. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=998151 -- Soren Stoutner so...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
