Fix name of pitopcli package

[angusjfw]

Status	Ticket/Issue
Ready	no Ticket

Main changes

• pip install pitop was failing for me due to a dependency on 'pitop.cli' when the package is published as 'pitopcli'
• also update the name in the debian dist overrides

Screenshots (feature, test output, profiling, dev tools etc)

[insert screenshots here]

Other notes (e.g. implementation quirks, edge cases, questions / issues)

-

Manual testing tips

-

Tag anyone who definitely needs to review or help

-

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Base: 60.49% // Head: 60.49% // No change to project coverage :thumbsup:

Coverage data is based on head (bd70158) compared to base (075ffbe). Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #576 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 60.49% 60.49% ======================================= Files 147 147 Lines 7292 7292 ======================================= Hits 4411 4411 Misses 2881 2881 ``` | Flag | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | unittests | `60.49% <ø> (ø)` | | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=pi-top#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more. Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=pi-top). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=pi-top)

:umbrella: View full report at Codecov.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[m-roberts]

Why would this not be pitop.cli? Just wondering

[angusjfw]

Why would this not be pitop.cli? Just wondering

We decided the pitopcli should not be a subpackage of pitop as it acts as a separate interface to the SDK functionality rather than a part of it. So the different naming is to reflect this.

That said, I don't think we've got this fully resolved yet. For one thing it would probably have made more sense to remove it as a python dependency of the pitop package here, and instead include it in the OS via a debian dependency, to reflect that point that it's not a required part of the python sdk. Possibly we should also name it differently in debian to reflect it is a standalone tool: pitopcli not python3-pitop-cli.