On 27-04-2023 10:48, Petr Viktorin wrote:
That sounds good. You could also do it the other way around.
I think that depends on the main purpose of the package. Is it primarily an app or primarily a library. In this case it seems the utility is prevalent.
Albeit, I don't mind naming it python-vkbasalt-cli and providing a python3-vkbasalt-cli subpackage and a provides vkbasalt = ...
I did the same for python-fvs, which looks to be primarily a library with an added utility [1]
In this case, it looks like `vkbasalt-cli` is developed independently of vkbasalt itself, is that right? If there's a chance that an “official” vkbasalt CLI appears in the future, consider using only `python-vkbasalt-cli`, to prevent future confusion. But I guess if that ever happened, the fact that vkbasalt-cli provides `/usr/bin/vkbasalt` would be a bigger issue.
Well, I submitted the package for review [2] and have been told that vkbasalt not being published on PyPI is an issue wrt naming parity. So, I filed a bug requesting publication on PyPI [3], but I haven't heard back from upstream, yet. If upstream remains unresponsive, I would need to either publish it myself or get the name reserved as described in PyPI parity [4].
AFAICT, the package is developed independently of vkbasalt and specifically for Bottles.
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2187061 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2188653 [3] https://gitlab.com/TheEvilSkeleton/vkbasalt-cli/-/issues/10 [4] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Python/#_pypi_pari...
-- Sandro