Le 17/03/2012 18:52, Ike Devolder a écrit :
in my oppinion it is worth it, there are people around who dont want any python3 stuff on their pc until they can move everything now your weasyprint combined package pulls a lot of stuff, it is simple in a way that it will always work but you have a*lot* of overhead there
Ok I can understand that.
so personally i would consider the following:
- have python-weasyprint with renamed binary python-weasyprint - have python2-weasyprint with renamed binary python2-weasyprint - have weasyprint with only a binary weasyprint which can start any of the previous
Again, I don’t think multiple binaries are useful.
*or*
- have python-weasyprint only with libs, no binary - have python2-weasyprint only with libs, no binary - have weasyprint which can 'decide' which of the above is installed and run it with /usr/bin/python or /usr/bin/python2
attached a possibility to switch to the installed version
python{,2}-weasyprint packages with only libs sound good. I only use it as a lib myself; I added the command-line interface because it was easy. Actually, it’s probably better to have a long-lived python process than to pay the start-up cost every time, even in a non-python application. As for the third package, would it depend on one or the other lib package? I found two patterns in existing packages in [community]: * python-pygments just removes /usr/bin/pygmentize (python2-pygments has it) * python2-sphinx renames eg. /usr/bin/sphinx-build to sphinx-build2, but I guess it could be important to have both if Sphinx need to import the documented code. Regards, -- Simon Sapin