[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Call for backport review: mps-youtube && pafy



Hi Vincent,

On 06/24/2015 10:20 AM, Vincent Cheng wrote:
> Hi Zlatan,
> 
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Zlatan Todoric <zlatan@riseup.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> - packages in stable are broken because of youtube api change
>> (they work only on local playlist but youtube search, play,
>> download etc is broken due to api change (v2 -> v3)
> 
> I just wanted to point out that the backports ftpmasters are
> fairly stringent in asking for backports not to be used for the
> purpose of fixing broken packages in stable (i.e. packages that are
> broken in stable should be fixed via stable-updates, not
> stable-backports). Is there no way to (minimally) backport the
> required changes to the existing packages in stable? (If so, the
> packages should really be removed from stable first.)

Well, as I stated, the package isn't broken per se, but Youtube API
changed so it's not anymore usable for youtube search, play,
download... if somebody create local playlist, it will still work.
Also mps-youtube and pafy in Jessie are Python2 only while now (in
unstable and testing) they are Python3 only (so python-pafy that is in
current Jessie doesn't build from new source and is AFAIK removed from
unstable/testing with arrival of python3-pafy. The version I proposed
is the first version after stable release which has rewritten gdata
for usage of new API (which I already believe is the bare minimum of
changes, please do give me more detailed explanation if you meant on
something else/more). I had some conversation and talked about
stable-updates and backports and was pointed to backports as more sane
approach for this situation. For the removal, I really didn't give a
thought - both packages are fairly minor and I didn't really think
that removal is needed (or is the appropriate procedure in this case)
but as python3-pafy has Breaks&Replaces on python-pafy I guess it
wouldn't hurt to remove it (but as I said, I am not sure for the
proper procedure on this, is there documentation where I can read this?).

> Regards, Vincent
> 

Thanks,

zlatan
-- 
It's not the COST, it's the VALUE

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


Reply to: