[tryton-debian] Packaging of suds-jurko (was: suds)

[Mathias Behrle]

* Donald Stufft: " Re: Packaging of suds-jurko (was: suds)" (Tue, 1 Jul 2014
  17:55:17 -0400):

> 
> On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry at debian.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Jul 01, 2014, at 01:10 PM, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > 
> >> The first tests on suds-jurko are looking very promising. I built the
> >> package succesfully as a drop-in replacement for the current python-suds
> >> package. It builds correctly for python2 and python3 with all tests. I
> >> tested part of the functionality for python2, all was working well. The
> >> maintainer of suds-jurko is very active and responsive.
> > 
> > Will a Python 3 compatible suds library allow us to make progress on #732644
> > without rewriting bts to use REST+JSON <wink>?
> > 
> >> 1) Can I drop in the suds-jurko fork into the current suds package as
> >> proposed by Jordan?
> > 
> > Given that suds on PyPI hasn't been updated in almost 4 years, I think we
> > can reasonably assume its upstream is defunct.  We had a sort of analogous
> > situation with setuptools, but the distribute and setuptools upstreams did
> > eventually merge back together.
> > 
> > A counter example might be oauth which was also abandoned upstream and for
> > which a new upstream called oauthlib was released.  However, in that case,
> > the replacement was *not* API compatible, so it made sense to make it a
> > different Debian package.
> > 
> > I don't really have a strong opinion, as I can see both sides of the coin.
> > You're *probably* safe just taking over the source package, but if you woke
> > up tomorrow with an extra dose of paranoia, then you might favor a new
> > source package, which also wouldn't be objectionable, albeit more work to
> > transition dependencies.
> > 
> >> 2) If not 1) what would be the best alternative?
> >> 
> >> In this case I would plan
> >> 
> >> - a new python-suds-jurko package, conflicting with python-suds
> >> - filing bugs to rdepends to use the new package
> >> - removing the old package as soon as possible
> > 
> > Yep.  It's a bit ugly though (I don't like the -jurko blarg).  Oh well, do
> > what you think is right.
> > 
> > -Barry
> 
> *Puts on PyPI Admin Hat*
> 
> Probably if suds-jurko or whatever is the unofficial “suds” that people should
> be using then there is a good chance that PyPI would be willing to transfer
> the name of suds to one of the forks. I’d have to talk to Richard to be sure
> about that but it’s potentially an option.

That indeed would be really great. Jurko just had the same idea and it would be
the cleanest solution.

What steps should be done to achieve this? Is it enough to point Jurko to post
a request on http://sourceforge.net/p/pypi/support-requests/ ?


-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/tryton-debian/attachments/20140702/e5799bf9/attachment.sig>