Am Fr., 26. Jan. 2024 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Miro HronĨok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>:
On 26. 01. 24 4:33, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> What is the*fascination* with splitting and renaming packages this
> way?
No idea generally, but in the world of Python packaging,
the two cases I know (poetry, flit) were motivated by folks not wanting to pull
in full-blown package and environment management apps when they only want to
pip install something that uses it.
The split made a lot of sense.
core - PEP517 backend
https://peps.python.org/pep-0517/
the rest - an app that let's you "manage" your project
Scenario:
- The developer uses the full app to create and develop the project.
- The user uses -core to build and install it.
(Obviously a developer is free to just use -core as well, if they like it. Many
upstream projects use flit-core only.)
It makes a lot of sense also if you think about it this way:
- packaging needs a solid base
- developers and (typical fedora) users want the latest and greatest
A split like in this case gives us both.
I have the impression that we package way too much stuff which would
be installed better on a per user base, such as many python and rust
and go (and ...) packages and fonts. This leads to many interesting
discussions and decisions about what kind of upgrade is right on
Fedora and even EPEL.
Michael