Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic
I've pushed an update here:
https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat
It includes a copy of libmagic's bindings, wrapped in deprecation
warnings. So apps should work regardless of which they depend on.
Could you take a look and see if this works for your case?
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Mathias Behrle <mathiasb@m9s.biz> wrote:
> * Mathias Behrle: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for
> python-magic" (Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0200):
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> are there any news on the subject?
>
> The release of Tryton, that will require python-magic is scheduled for next
> week. It would be a great service to our users and simplify things a lot, if we
> had a common python-magic in place. Please let us know, if we can help with the
> planned merge.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathias
>
>
>> * Adam Hupp: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 3 Oct 2017
>> 11:06:38 -0700):
>>
>> That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mathias
>>
>>
>> > Sorry about the slow response. This has been a pain for a while. I
>> > have a provisional diff to merge the two packages. Will give it some
>> > testing and pass a branch to you folks to take a look. Ideally the
>> > upstream file package would take it over.
>> >
>> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> wrote:
>> > > * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 5 Sep
>> > > 2017 18:24:25 +0200):
>> > >
>> > >> 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:
>> > >
>> > > [...]
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for your additional information and initiative to re-launch the
>> > > merge of the two packages. This reads much better and more optimistic than
>> > > what I could find until now! Crossing fingers now in the hope for the best
>> > > outcome for everybody.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Mathias
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Mathias Behrle
>> > > PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
>> > > AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Mathias Behrle
> PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
> AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6
--
Adam Hupp | http://hupp.org/adam/
Reply to: