Hi Michael, "Michael R. Crusoe" <cru...@debian.org> wrote on 24/01/2022 at 11:39:23+0100:
> [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for 3C26763F6C67E6E2 created at > 2022-01-24T11:39:23+0100 using RSA]] > On Tue, 11 Jan 2022 22:38:44 +0100 p...@debian.org wrote: >> Package: python3-schema-salad >> Severity: wishlist >> >> Dear maintainer, >> >> Your package python3-schema-salad depends on python3-mistune 0.8.4 >> which is no longer maintained and deprecated in favour of version >> 2.0.0. >> >> As python3-mistune 2.0.0 is not backward compatible, I reverted the >> upload of it that I did in unstable and python3-mistune 0.8.4 will >> stay around a bit longer. >> >> In the meantime, please try to see if upstream of >> python3-schema-salad either released a version that is compatible >> with python3-mistune 2.0.0 or if python3-schema-salad can easily be >> fixed to support such a version. As soon as you're ready to upload >> your package please update this bug report and we'll try to >> coordinate so that I release python3-mistune at a time that is fit >> for you to also release python3-schema-salad. > > Dear Pierre-Elliott Bécue, > > Thank you for trying to find a way forward in this mess. I am also the > upstream maintainer for schema-salad. We have yet to find a way to > support mistune 2.x > > Here is our attempt so far: > > https://github.com/common-workflow-language/schema_salad/pull/496/files?short_path=5c6a130#diff-5c6a1301c6b59b30a040d747d065e861d3dd98bde0e5a4356d92d594e9835986 > > And an issue I opened with mistune directly about a regression in > multi-line list handling that goes against multiple markdown specs: > https://github.com/lepture/mistune/issues/296 > > We have not decided if we will switch to another library, wait for a > fixed mistune 2.x release, or keep with the older version. > >> I intend to upload src:mistune 2.0.0 to unstable between March the > >> 15th and April the 15th (depending on the progress of its >> reverse-dependencies). I'll raise the severity of this bug >> approximately a month before making such an upload. > > Since Mistune 2.0.0 regresses its support for standard markdown, I ask > that a separate package be made for mistune 2.x to give more time for > mistune 0.8.x users to migrate to mistune 2.x or another library entirely. > > Cheers, I'm not formally against it, but it's not really standard in my opinion. It'd lead to maintenance of two packages, probably on some long term (as it'd relieve the pressure to migrate for maintainers of reverse-deps of mistune). Besides, having a source package named "mistune2" while upstream's package is named "mistune" adds also another layer of complexity. I'd like to have some python team members' opinion on this, and I am not sure to be eager to do it as of now. Cheers! -- PEB
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
