* Barry Warsaw: " Re: Packaging of suds-jurko (was: suds)" (Tue, 1 Jul 2014
17:41:28 -0400):
> On Jul 01, 2014, at 01:10 PM, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> >The first tests on suds-jurko are looking very promising. I built the package
> >succesfully as a drop-in replacement for the current python-suds package. It
> >builds correctly for python2 and python3 with all tests. I tested part of the
> >functionality for python2, all was working well. The maintainer of suds-jurko
> >is very active and responsive.
>
> Will a Python 3 compatible suds library allow us to make progress on #732644
> without rewriting bts to use REST+JSON <wink>?
>
> >1) Can I drop in the suds-jurko fork into the current suds package as
> >proposed by Jordan?
>
> Given that suds on PyPI hasn't been updated in almost 4 years, I think we can
> reasonably assume its upstream is defunct. We had a sort of analogous
> situation with setuptools, but the distribute and setuptools upstreams did
> eventually merge back together.
>
> A counter example might be oauth which was also abandoned upstream and for
> which a new upstream called oauthlib was released. However, in that case, the
> replacement was *not* API compatible, so it made sense to make it a different
> Debian package.
>
> I don't really have a strong opinion, as I can see both sides of the coin.
> You're *probably* safe just taking over the source package, but if you woke up
> tomorrow with an extra dose of paranoia, then you might favor a new source
> package, which also wouldn't be objectionable, albeit more work to transition
> dependencies.
Thanks a lot, Barry, for your input. I woke up this morning very well, with
much confidence in the maintainer, that regressions could be fixed very
quickly, just in case.
> >2) If not 1) what would be the best alternative?
> >
> >In this case I would plan
> >
> >- a new python-suds-jurko package, conflicting with python-suds
> >- filing bugs to rdepends to use the new package
> >- removing the old package as soon as possible
>
> Yep. It's a bit ugly though (I don't like the -jurko blarg). Oh well, do
> what you think is right.
Thanks again. I think, with the additional hint of Donald I will go for drop-in.
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature