On Mon, Aug 4, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Ritesh Raj Sarraf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay!! Cool! The debianbts.py file that I'd copied from reportbug package > still works for me. What I can do is follow up on how it is going to go > forward. python-debianbts or python-btsutils, any would be fine as long as > their libs are independent.
If python-btsutils now has a more functional interface--when I investigated it before, some of which I think you can find in the abandoned 4.x branch in svn, it only would handle the logic of grabbing single reports; its support for grabbing info on a whole package was weak and essentially required grabbing all of the reports individually to get the metadata we need for the bug list--I'll work towards making reportbug call btsutils directly or a thin wrapper to replace our debianbts.py (I have no clue or interest what the -NG people want to do with python-debianbts - it's their fork and I'm not going to get involved with it). In short, I think python-btsutils overall is the winning solution for all concerned if the warts have been fixed but I haven't had time to investigate. Chris _______________________________________________ Reportbug-maint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/reportbug-maint
