packaging

[msftcangoblowm]

There are two scripts, but no packaging. Each script should be a (testable) entrypoint.

Here is an example published package, with packaging design that works

repo with nice packaging

You are welcome to borrow the packaging. Especially the semantic versioning.

[msftcangoblowm]

With packaging there would be no need to list the dependencies

The dependencies should be within requirements/.in files. Which are then expanded into requirements/.pip files

Using the command make upgrade

A pyproject.toml file would then have a section looking similar to (meaning steal this):

[tool.setuptools.dynamic]
optional-dependencies.pip = { file = ["requirements/pip.pip"] }
optional-dependencies.pip_tools = { file = ["requirements/pip-tools.pip"] }
dependencies = { file = ["requirements/prod.pip"] }
optional-dependencies.dev = { file = ["requirements/dev.pip"] }
optional-dependencies.manage = { file = ["requirements/manage.pip"] }
optional-dependencies.docs = { file = ["docs/requirements.pip"] }
version = {attr = "logging_strict._version.__version__"}

Afterwards can remove the dependencies list from README.[rst|md]