Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#756872: RM: gnupginterface -- ROM; No human maintainer left, dead upstream
On 2014-08-03 at 22:01:00 +0400, Dmitry Shachnev wrote: > FWIW, that 1.3.1 version is a fork of original python-gnupg. > > According to Github repo description [1], it is "a modified version of > python-gnupg, including security patches, extensive documentation, and > extra features". again FWIW: there is a request_ for packaging that release instead of the "original" python-gnupg upstream release; the request for clarification on why it is needed received no answer, however, so I still see no reason why the fork was needed .. _request: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=724481 -- Elena ``of Valhalla'' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140803201019.gc2...@virginsteele.home.trueelena.org
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#756872: RM: gnupginterface -- ROM; No human maintainer left, dead upstream
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Aug 02, 2014, at 06:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>If someone on the team is interested in this package staying in Debian and >>willing to be added to uploaders, please speak up. I don't mind doing the >>work to modernize the packaging, but don't care to be responsible for it long >>term. > > I personally don't think it's worth spending time on gnupginterface. We have > the PyPI package python-gnupg in the archive and its upstream seems relatively > active. I don't think we have gnupg 1.3.1 (top PyPI hit for "gnupg") and that > has an even more recent PyPI release. I haven't looked at the latter, but I > use the former in several projects, including Python 3 projects. FWIW, that 1.3.1 version is a fork of original python-gnupg. According to Github repo description [1], it is "a modified version of python-gnupg, including security patches, extensive documentation, and extra features". [1] https://github.com/isislovecruft/python-gnupg -- Dmitry Shachnev -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cakimphvmcfaa+pfwh9oaphxtlzjpgdyocvhy+5fluk0lnck...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [Python-modules-team] Bug#756872: RM: gnupginterface -- ROM; No human maintainer left, dead upstream
On Aug 02, 2014, at 06:23 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: >If someone on the team is interested in this package staying in Debian and >willing to be added to uploaders, please speak up. I don't mind doing the >work to modernize the packaging, but don't care to be responsible for it long >term. I personally don't think it's worth spending time on gnupginterface. We have the PyPI package python-gnupg in the archive and its upstream seems relatively active. I don't think we have gnupg 1.3.1 (top PyPI hit for "gnupg") and that has an even more recent PyPI release. I haven't looked at the latter, but I use the former in several projects, including Python 3 projects. I think we should drop gnupginterface. Cheers, -Barry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140803110630.7cb08...@anarchist.wooz.org
Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7
On 3 August 2014 15:07, Brian May wrote: > It will be released very soon now. They have released RC2, and I heard, as > of yesterday, there was only one blocking bug (I am at PyConAu). > It sounds like there might be be some effort to make Django 1.7 releasable at the post-conference sprints, starting tomorrow. Which I hope to attend, at least for the first day in the morning. -- Brian May
Re: Help needed to test packages with Django 1.7
On Sun, 03 Aug 2014, Brian May wrote: > > Django 1.7 final isn't even released upstream, and therefore, downstream > > projects didn't even try to run against it. There *will* be issues we > > will have to deal with. 85 packages is quite something. I'm ok, and even > > welcome to *try* to make it before Jessie, though it is my view that > > it's unreasonable to rush without taking care of possible breaking. I already explained you in another thread on debian-release, that it's not reasonable security-wise to release Jessie with Django 1.6. And you're well placed to know what it means to maintain a package that gets security updates very often... We have very few Django end-users apps in Jessie, so let's try to take care of those but it's not a problem if some of the Django "extensions" (i.e. apps available for integration in custom developments that have almost no reverse dependencies) are dropped from jessie. > > FYI, I'm trying to deal with python-memcache support for Python 3.4. > > Until that one is fixed, I wont be able to add support for Python 3 in > > keystoneclient, and therefore *a lot* of other packages will have no > > Python 3 support. I've tried to forward port a patch from > > python3-memcached, though it's still not ready, and unit tests are > > failing. Julien Danjou (eg: acid@d.o) wrote to me he'll try to find time > > to help. I really hope this one issue will be fixed soon, so that I can > > work on adding Python 3 everywhere possible in OpenStack, though right > > now it's a major blocker. I also hope we can upstream Python3 support > > for memcached, as the python3-memcached fork has been a major waste IMO. If you aren't able to deal with Django 1.7 support and Python 3 support before the freeze, please treat python 3 support as lower priority to Django 1.7 support. That said it would be nice to have both. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Discover the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-python-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140803072708.gb19...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
