Am Fr., 26. Jan. 2024 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Miro Hrončok mhroncok@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