[tryton-debian] python-profitbricks-client: Please use a maintained soap library instead of deprecated python-suds.

[Scott Talbert]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Mathias Behrle wrote:

> * Scott Talbert: " Re: [tryton-debian] python-profitbricks-client: Please use a
>  maintained soap library instead of deprecated python-suds." (Fri, 21 Aug 2015
>  20:10:24 -0400 (EDT)):
>
>> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>>
>>>>> I would much prefer to use suds-jurko as drop-in replacement for our
>>>>> current suds, because
>>>>>
>>>>> * suds-jurko is a fork that does not break the API
>>>>
>>>> There may be some probability for this, but Jurko himself didn't give the
>>>> guarantee, that the changes already done didn't affect the API. Do you
>>>> want to provide this guarantee?
>>>>
>>>>> * the original suds upstream is dead
>>>>> * the original suds could reclaim the namespace if upstream was becoming
>>>>> active again
>>>>> * rdepends don't have to change anything
>>>>
>>>> rdepends should use the new upstream explicitly (see above) instead of
>>>> perhaps suddenly failing because of a more or less inadvertised drop-in.
>>>>
>>>>> IMO it makes no sense to rename the Debian binary package to
>>>>> python-suds-jurko when you still run "import suds" instead of "import
>>>>> suds_jurko".
>>>>
>>>> It is not renaming a package, but indeed a new package. Just like the
>>>> project on Pypi is different from the still existing suds.
>>>
>>> After looking again to the current state of suds-jurko (which is no more
>>> fully API compatible), the result of the conversation at DebConf today
>>> between Benjamin and me is:
>>
>> Are you confirming that suds-jurko is definitely not API compatible with
>> suds, or are you just stating that there is uncertainty whether it is API
>> compatible?
>
> Indeed I recently stumbled about an incompatibility. This one refers to a
> logging method and is not a big deal, but so I can confirm.

Just out of curiosity, what was the incompatibility?

Scott