Bug#812908: ITP: python-progress -- easy progress reporting for Python
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Barry Warsaw <barry@debian.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
* Package name : python-progress
Version : 1.2
Upstream Author : Giorgos Verigakis
* URL : https://github.com/verigak/progress/
* License : ISC
Programming Lang: Python
Description : easy progress reporting for Python
License note: ISC is this OSI approved license:
http://opensource.org/licenses/ISC
progress is a library for displaying progress meters for command line
Python applications. It is a relatively new dependency for pip, and
getting progress into Debian is a blocker for updating to the latest
version of pip.
We do have progressbar already in Debian, but I think it's still worth
getting progress in too for several reasons. One obviously is the pip
dependency. Upstream pip is amenable to contributed patches for
progressbar as an alternative, but this is a fair bit of work that to
be honest I don't want to block on in order to get pip updated (we're
woefully behind upstream here).
The other reason is that it's not entirely clear which package is
better supported upstream. progressbar itself appears to be
stalled/abandoned upstream. While it's last PyPI entry is dated
2015-02-20, it's last upstream github commit is dated 2012-12-25.
PyPI has a completely rewritten and not 100% compatible progressbar2,
but getting that into Debian would require an ITP anyway.
The last upload to PyPI for progress is dated 2013-11-28, but its
last upstream github commit is dated today (2016-01-27) so it's
clearly still active upstream, although it appears to be newly so.
On balance I think it is thus worth getting progress into Debian as
python-progress, for the pip dependency.
I plan to maintain this package as part of the Debian Python Modules
Team.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=Qrhp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: