On Jul 1, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org> wrote: > 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. > >> 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. > > -Barry *Puts on PyPI Admin Hat* Probably if suds-jurko or whatever is the unofficial “suds” that people should be using then there is a good chance that PyPI would be willing to transfer the name of suds to one of the forks. I’d have to talk to Richard to be sure about that but it’s potentially an option. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail