Re: Request For a Review: python-mpd2/0.4.1-1 [ITP]
On 20/03/12 23:16, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> Forks that simply suffix "2" are a really poor idea.
Yes, this.
> * Is the python-mpd upstream unresponsive? It looks like Alexander
> will stop actively maintaining python-mpd soon, but he doesn't support
> the fork for a number of valid reasons that haven't been addressed in
> this RFS.
If the fork is just python-mpd with a few patches (as he states in the
upstream bug report), one option for moving forward is to review those
patches, check that they are as correct as they can be, and ask
python-mpd's upstream to review and integrate them - if you can save him
some work by fixing obvious errors, and point to that as evidence that
you know what you're doing, he might even be willing for you to help to
maintain python-mpd upstream.
Another possible way forward, if the fork has to remain forked, would be
for the maintainer of the fork ("Mic92"?) to rename the Python module;
then the fork and the original can compete on their own merits,
applications can choose one or the other, and Debian doesn't have to
decide which one gets to have the "mpd" name. If he can't think of any
better distinguishing feature, using his name or nickname or initials or
something would be better than nothing. ("from micmpd import ..."?)
Even renaming it to mpd2 (as in "from mpd2 import ...") would be better
than nothing, although as already noted, this is a great big namespace
land-grab which a fork Should Not Do.
S
Reply to: