Re: Request For a Review: python-mpd2/0.4.1-1 [ITP]
Hi Simon,
Le 21/03/2012 13:13, Simon McVittie a écrit :
> On 20/03/12 23:16, Fernando Lemos wrote:
> 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.
As I already state on python-mpd upstream tracker [0], forking the project is
the worse solution IMHO. Jörg Thalheim (aka Mic92) and I have made all
we can to avoid the fork, but upstream author choose another way which I
respect and understand.
> 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 ..."?)
Actually the reason the fork act as a drop in replacement for python-mpd
is that we first though python-mpd's upstream was "MIA" and the project
abandoned. We were proved wrong, the project is dormant and your
proposition make sense Simon.
For now on, I will wait and see how the situation evolves with upstreams
and related projects.
[0] comment 13, mar 12, 2012: <http://jatreuman.indefero.net/p/python-mpd/issues/7/#ic36>
Thanks all of you for your concern and advices :)
Cheers,
Geoff
Reply to: