On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, Andrew Price wrote: > On 22/01/09 22:18, Neil McGovern wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:33:55AM +0000, Andrew Price wrote: > >> I realise there are restrictions on unfreezing packages where there are > >> substantial upstream changes. However, the Twitter API has changed > >> substantially since twyt 0.8.5 was released and has effectively > >> obsoleted 0.8.5. > >> > > > > Given that the API changed once, what's the chance of it happening again > > during the lenny cycle? This package may be better suited to volotile or > > something. > > > > Thoughts? > > The Twitter API has been fairly stable over recent months. Although, it > being closed and unversioned means that I have no way of knowing the > chances of it changing significantly in the future. I have a feeling it > will change during Lenny's released lifetime, though. > > I wonder if the python-twitter package has a similar problem to > python-twyt? What is its strategy for staying compatible during Lenny's > lifetime? (CCing the maintainer.) Hello, Here's the relevant part of the email i sent to the upstream about this issue: --- Being of Email to Upstream --- ... I got an email from the debian-release team asking me about the actual/future Twitter API changes and the python-twitter compatibility through the years (let's say, at least ...2 years, and probably more..). I've been reading the changes added to the API and to the '0.6-devel' code and i think that shipping the 0.5 release on Debian Lenny (the new stable branch) probably will end up being a really out-dated module losing most of its features. Also this new version (0.6) uses the version 2.0.7 of simplejson, and the one shipped with Debian Lenny is 1.9.2, so the chances of uploading 0.6 before the new stable release are slim to none. ... --- End of Email to Upstream --- And here is the relevant part of his answer: --- Begin of Upstream Answer --- On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, DeWitt Clinton wrote: > > It should be possible for me to release 0.6 on simplejson 1.9.2 and wait > for 0.7 before moving to 2.x. Let me think about this tonight. > --- End of Upstream Answer --- Well, as of today, i believe python-twitter works fine with Twitter API, but as Andrew said "...it being closed and unversioned means that I have no way of knowing the chances of it changing significantly in the future...", so today both (twyt and python-twitter) may work like a charm, but i have no idea if these modules would be useful one year from now, so probably the best thing to do is to leave them on 'testing' (or volatile). But at the same time i'd like to know if would be possible to allow these packages on Lenny (having in mind that both are working with *most* of the Twitter API features, and trying to be up-to-date as possible), so this way we have a chance to upload them on the future to "lenny-backports" when the upstream changes are substantial. Regards, Mauro -- JID: lavaramano@jabber.org | http://lusers.com.ar/ work: mauro@gcoop.com.ar | http://gcoop.com.ar/ 2B82 A38D 1BA5 847A A74D 6C34 6AB7 9ED6 C8FD F9C1
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature