[ I'm not lost, just way too occupied with other issues, sorry ]
Mathias Behrle wrote...
> * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Fri, 6 Oct 2017
> 08:34:04 +0200):
>
> > In order to control the transition, I've filed in ITP (intent to
> > package) for Adam's python-magic as https://bugs.debian.org/877849
>
> Did I misunderstand
> | Ideally the upstream file package would take it over.
> ?
>
> Perhaps a little bit early, because we didn't see Adams solution, but I would
> like to understand the goals. Am I right that the intentions are
>
> - Add a compatibility layer to python-magic[file] to support the feature set of
> python-magic[pypi]
> - Provide in some way on Pypi the same featureset for file-magic and
> python-magic
As I understand, Adam will provide a [file] compatibility layer to
python-magic[pypi]. Then there'll be no longer a need to ship
python-magic[file], and eventually [file] upstream will drop it anyway.
> If this would be the case, in my understanding there wouldn't be any need for an
> ITP or transition, but just the possibility for (Debian) packages needing
> python-magic[pypi) to use the then compatible python-magic[file].
My goal is to have just one python-magic package that is usable for
applications written for both, [file] and [pypi]. Assuming this will
come from Adam[pypi], I filed the ITP. But it's all about the goal, not
about how it's technically achieved.
Hope this made things a bit more clear.
Christoph
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature