[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic

Mathias Behrle wrote...

> * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4 Sep 2017
>   19:38:56 +0200):

> > The cleanest solution indeed was to bring both upstreams together and
> > ask them to reconcile the APIs and eventually make one of the both
> > implementations obsolete. As things happen such an attempt was started
> > two years ago but appearently never came to a result.[1]
> Agreed, that this would be the cleanest solution, but as you say there is
> little probability, that the two upstreams will work together to merge their
> implementations.

Still this should be tried first. Also, I'm not that pessimistic, see
below. So let's bring the parties involved into the loop:


* Christos Zoulas for file(1), and
* Adam Hupp for python-magic.

A while ago, almost two years by now, there was a short discussion on
the file(1) mailing list concerning a merge of the libmagic python
bindings. In summary, Adam proposed to end the long-standing
confusion[2], Christos agreed and suggested a possible solution[3].

After that however, nothing visible happened.

But now I'd like to give that idea a push. Mostly since on the Debian
Python mailing list (also in Cc:) a proposal was made to exchange
python-magic in Debian, from the file(1) to the PyPi one. Wearing the
maintainer's hat for file(1) in Debian, I opposed this for the sole
reason this will break applications that rely on the file(1) version.

Resolving this issue upstream will bring benefit for everybody, even at
the risk of a bumpy but one-time only transition. What is the status of
your project? Do you need some input, suggestions or other incentive
to finish this project?


> > [1] The file mailing list server is currently down, so I cannot provide
> >     URLs. The Message-IDs are
> >     <CAJTao09xATQYZ3qR-4CR+oOrrqB_W=kYUJV8esOe4b3bdA5nwA@mail.gmail.com>
> >     <20151020133008.9B79517FDAB@rebar.astron.com>
> Still down:(, If you could provide some content for me that would be nice.


[ Adam: ]
| Sadly, this has led to regular confusion for our users.  I'd be happy
| to shutdown my version to avoid more confusion but it seems to be
| fairly widely used (200k downloads from pypi last month).  It also has
| a number of fixes for various issues:  libmagic bugs, thread safety,
| support for other platforms, etc.
| I'd like to gauge interest in merging these bindings into a single
| codebase.  Specifically, this would mean:
| - merge magic.py from each package to produce something reasonably
| close to API-compatible to both, with some methods marked as
| deprecated where it makes sense.
| - the merged package would live under the python-magic name in pypi
| and in the `file` source distribution.
| I think this would be ideal for everyone involved, but wanted to gauge
| your interest before I went to the trouble.

[ Christos: ]
| Sure, it would be nice for the users if there was a definitive
| python package that had the best features from both. Someone recently
| filed a bug report about it: http://bugs.gw.com/view.php?id=477.
| Why don't you go ahead and merge them and I will copy the result
| over mine, and put a link to your package in the file sources (or
| even delete mine, and put a link to your package).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: