* Mathias Behrle: " [tryton-debian] Bug#783029: Bug#788087: python-profitbricks-client: Please use a maintained soap library instead of deprecated python-suds." (Wed, 8 Jul 2015 16:12:58 +0200):
> * Benjamin Drung: " Bug#783029: Bug#788087: python-profitbricks-client: Please
> use a maintained soap library instead of deprecated python-suds." (Wed, 08
> Jul 2015 13:51:29 +0200):
[snip]
> > I would much prefer to use suds-jurko as drop-in replacement for our
> > current suds, because
> >
> > * suds-jurko is a fork that does not break the API
>
> There may be some probability for this, but Jurko himself didn't give the
> guarantee, that the changes already done didn't affect the API. Do you want to
> provide this guarantee?
>
> > * the original suds upstream is dead
> > * the original suds could reclaim the namespace if upstream was becoming
> > active again
> > * rdepends don't have to change anything
>
> rdepends should use the new upstream explicitly (see above) instead of
> perhaps suddenly failing because of a more or less inadvertised drop-in.
>
> > IMO it makes no sense to rename the Debian binary package to
> > python-suds-jurko when you still run "import suds" instead of "import
> > suds_jurko".
>
> It is not renaming a package, but indeed a new package. Just like the project
> on Pypi is different from the still existing suds.
After looking again to the current state of suds-jurko (which is no more fully
API compatible), the result of the conversation at DebConf today between
Benjamin and me is:
* Benjamin wants to try first to port profitbrick packages to pysimplesoap,
which now has hit testing.
* After that he will decide, if he wants to take over maintenance of the
current suds package to do a drop-in with suds-jurko or create a separate
suds-jurko package or if at lest he doesn't need suds at all.
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
pgpWC5VlQBHhk.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
