Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy
On Monday, January 04, 2016 07:58:26 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On January 4, 2016 2:18:22 PM EST, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org>
wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >TLDR: Both are the same, providing the "socks" module. We should
> >remove one of them. Maybe renaming the other to python-socks.
> >
> >Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy
> >package. This involved following a new upstream. Later I was
> >informed, that the new upstream was already packaged under the
> >name python-pysocks.
> >
> >Questions:
> > - shall we remove one of the package?
> >
> > (proposal: yes)
>
> Yes. Please file the RM bug.
This is done (#810306).
> > - which of the two packages should be removed from Debian?
> >
> > (proposal: remove pysocks, just because socksipy is older)
>
> Reasonable. Also both maintained by DPMT, so we can just pick.
>
> > - shall the other package provide dummy transitional packages?
> >
> > (proposal: yes)
>
> Actually, based on Python Policy both have wrong binary names. The binaries
> should be python/python3-socks since they provide the socks module. No
> need to rename the source. I think transitional packages are only needed
> if there are rdepends that need updating and the can't be done now.
> > - shall we rename the binary package to python-socks?
> >
> > (proposal: yes)
>
> Definitely. See above.
So the above changes have been completed. I noticed that several packages had
Recommends/Depends on one of the old package names, so I filed bugs.
Bug#810309: torchat
Bug#810308: python-sleekxmpp
Bug#810307: offlineimap
Scott K
Reply to: