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

Re: python-socketio x gevent-socketio



On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 10:47 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I orphaned gevent-websocket and William Grzybowski took over this
> package. Therefore taking him into the loop.

Not clear how websocket package is related but I will try to help!

> 
> Am Montag, den 03.12.2018, 22:20 -0200 schrieb Paulo Henrique
> Santana:
> > So. what is a good a solution to this?
> > Keep my python-socketio on Python3 tree and gevent-socketio on
> > Python2.7?
> > Use Conflicts field to force the user to remove gevent-socketio
> > before install python-socketio?
> > Or other solution?
> > 
> > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/flask-socketio
> > [2] https://github.com/miguelgrinberg/Flask-SocketIO
> > [3] https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/gevent-socketio
> > [4] https://pypi.org/project/gevent-socketio/#files
> > [5] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=879631
> > [6] http://github.com/miguelgrinberg/python-socketio
> 
> IMO the best solution is to work together with upstream to resolve
> the
> Python namespace conflict. Then both packages use different paths in
> /usr/lib/python3/dist-packages and can be installed and used in
> parallel.

IMO gevent-socketio is pretty much a dead or extremely low maintenance
upstream, we could try talking to them but its likely we wont reach out
to a consensus, renaming python modules is terrible from both point of
views.

That said, python-socketio has no reverse dependencies so it would be
somewhat easy to rename python-socketio to python-gevent-socketio,
create the new package as python3-socketio to not have any confusion
with the naming and set up conflicts for them.

Who knows? Maybe gevent-socketio will get active again and add py3
support, which then we would need python3-gevent-socketio.

If it doesn't it will get removed as python 2.x support will eventually
get dropped.

Cheers,

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: