Re: python-keepkey_7.2.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED

I am resending the messages below to the Debian Python Team mailing list for 
further input.

On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:36:15 PM Mountain Standard Time Soren Stoutner 
wrote:
> On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:00:11 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian
> Blank
> 
> wrote:
> > Please merge the two binary packages.  There is no visible reason to
> > split them, as they depend on each other and are small.
> 
> I am a little confused.  This package structure is what is typically used by
> the Debian Python Team.
> 
> 1.  Pure Python modules are packaged as python3-foo, are part of the python
> section, and install to /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages.
> 
> 2.  Executables are packaged separately, are part of the utils section, and
> install to /usr/bin.
> 
> The executables depend on the pure Python modules, but the pure Python
> modules
> do not depends on the executables (as is the case here).  This is because
> there are use cases where other program only need to depend on the pure
> Python modules, but a user installing the executable will want both
> packages.
> 
> There are a lot of examples of this.  Here are a few that I just pulled out,
> but there are probably dozens or hundreds of examples.
> 
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/electrum
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/alembic
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/beancount
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/cssmin
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/python3-dmm
> https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/flatlatex
> 
> Are you saying that the standard way the Debian Python Team has been
> packaging
> programs should be changed?

Bastian Blank responded to the above with the following:

>On Saturday, November 8, 2025 5:59:27 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian Blank 
>wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 08, 2025 at 02:36:15PM -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 8, 2025 2:00:11 PM Mountain Standard Time Bastian
> > Blank
> > 
> > wrote:
> > > Please merge the two binary packages.  There is no visible reason to
> > > split them, as they depend on each other and are small.
> > 
> > The executables depend on the pure Python modules, but the pure Python
> > modules do not depends on the executables (as is the case here).  This is
> > because there are use cases where other program only need to depend on the
> > pure Python modules, but a user installing the executable will want both
> > packages.
> Please read our FAQ, it is listed under "Package split".
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html
> 
> Such one file packages are explicitly mentioned as usually not okay to
> be split away.

I am curious to get the team’s reaction to this.  As far as I can tell, this 
represents a change in expectations from the FTP Masters.  It is true that 
this is part of the FAQ, but there is long-standing practice of splitting such 
packages to maintain the Python naming conventions.  Or, am I somehow mistaken 
about how it is expected that Python modules be packaged?

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=QtlX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----