[tryton-debian] Bug#783029: [py3porters-devel] Packaging of suds-jurko

[Mathias Behrle]

* Mathias Behrle: " [tryton-debian] Bug#783029: Bug#783029: [py3porters-devel]
  Packaging of suds-jurko" (Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:46:01 +0200):

> * Lionel Elie Mamane: " Re: [tryton-debian] Bug#783029: [py3porters-devel]
>   Packaging of suds-jurko" (Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:32:23 +0200):

Hi Lionel, hi all,

> > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 03:27:12PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > > * Lionel Elie Mamane: " [tryton-debian] suds in Debian" (Tue, 28 Apr 2015
> > >   13:24:25 +0200):
> > 
> > >> I just uploaded the jurko fork of suds (the latter you are maintainer
> > >> of in Debian) to Debian.
> > 
> > > I am quite surprised to hear that. Your package even doesn't seem to
> > > close an ITP bug. Could you please provide the link to your
> > > packaging sources?
> > 
> > https://people.debian.org/~lmamane/suds/
> 
> You don't have permission to access /~lmamane/suds/suds-jurko_0.6-2.dsc on
> this server.
>  
> > >> The killer feature for me was compatibility with Python 3. It installs
> > >> as python module "suds", for drop-in replacement of suds.
> > 
> > > The "killer" feature of suds-jurko those days may turn out to be that it
> > > tends to be as unmaintained as the original suds.
> > 
> > <sigh>
> > 
> > >> For now, the Python2 package of suds-jurko provides and conflicts with
> > >> python-suds (your package). Let me know whether you think something
> > >> more "soft", like e.g. collaborating through update-alternatives,
> > >> would be more appropriate.
> > 
> > > Sorry, coordinating before uploading to NEW would have been much more
> > > appropriate, (...).
> > 
> > > Before commenting further I would like to hear about your motivations:
> > 
> > My motivation is purely having a working suds for Python3 so that I
> > can use stdnum.eu.vat.check_vies in Python3 (see
> > https://bugs.debian.org/774948 ). If my work is useful to others, then
> > I'm happy to share it, if not I'll keep it is a local package for me.
> > 
> > > - Are you aware of the work in progress at [1]?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > > - Are you aware of the planning to prepare suds-jurko as a drop-in
> > > replacement for suds with coordinating to migrate also the project at pypi
> > >   [2][3]?
> > 
> > No.
> > 
> > Since you seem to have good not-too-long-term plans, I'm happy if we
> > ask ftpmaster to reject my upload to make way for your plans.
> 
> The current state is:
> 
> - suds (as the original package from fedora) has a dead upstream
> - suds-jurko (fork of the original package ported to py3) meanwhile seems to
>   have a dead (or at least overloaded and unresponsive) upstream, too.
>   Last release: 2014-01-24
>   Last commit: 2014-12-25
> - pysimplesoap[0] seems to be a promising and maintained project.
> 
> 
> My personal plans are:
> 
> - Wait some weeks (say until end of May), if either there will be some
> feedback or some revivification on the project.
> - In case the project shows activity from maintainer side I would take it and
>   do a drop in for current suds.
> - In case there will be no activity, I won't step in as the quasi upstream of
>   suds-jurko. I would inform the rdepends of python-suds to consider the usage
>   of pysimplesoap.
>   Indeed, if you still want to take over maintenance of suds-jurko then
>   under this circumstances I will be happy to inform the rdepends to use
>   your package and to take off python-suds from the archive.
> 
> I think - provided pysimplesoap qualifies as a replacement for suds and
> suds-jurko remains in the current state - it makes more sense to put work
> on patches for the rdepends of python-suds to use pysimplesoap than to
> introduce another unmaintained package in the archive. At least I personally
> don't feel to have the continuing ability and to take the responsibility to
> beat another dead horse. If you want then to take over, that's fine for me.
> Until that decision I ask you indeed to wait with your package (i.e. to ask
> ftp-masters to not consider it for the moment).
> 
> As always I am open to suggests, those are just my current feelings and plans.

Time has passed and re-evaluating suds-jurko still shows no maintainer
activity. I don't get feedback on mails written directly to Jurko neither
there is action on patches or development on the bitbucket project.

So my personal decision is to not use suds-jurko as a drop-in for
suds. Further action now depends on your answer, Lionel:
Do you still want to maintain a suds-jurko package in Debian?

Depending on your answer I will add a deprecation warning in the current suds
package recommending the use of pysimplesoap (currently in NEW) or (if API
compatibility is required) the suds-jurko package.

Cheers,
Mathias



> [0] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=782970

-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 853 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/tryton-debian/attachments/20150601/66c12d48/attachment-0001.sig>