Re: Update wokkel?
On 2017-10-27 17:26, Angel Abad wrote: > Because there is no official release with these changes, I will > write upstream developer and I will tell you. Very good, thanks! You can reach him via xmpp:ral...@ik.nu > I you want to co-maintain wokkel package we could talk about it. Well, it is not that I really want to, but a software I like to use, sat_pubsub, depends on wokkel. sat_pubsub is currently Python 2, and the developer, goffi, will port it to Python 3 sooner or later. Therefore I have some interest in a working wokkel and would co-maintain it gladly, if this were of any help! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic
[ I'm not lost, just way too occupied with other issues, sorry ] Mathias Behrle wrote... > * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Fri, 6 Oct 2017 > 08:34:04 +0200): > > > In order to control the transition, I've filed in ITP (intent to > > package) for Adam's python-magic as https://bugs.debian.org/877849 > > Did I misunderstand > | Ideally the upstream file package would take it over. > ? > > Perhaps a little bit early, because we didn't see Adams solution, but I would > like to understand the goals. Am I right that the intentions are > > - Add a compatibility layer to python-magic[file] to support the feature set > of > python-magic[pypi] > - Provide in some way on Pypi the same featureset for file-magic and > python-magic As I understand, Adam will provide a [file] compatibility layer to python-magic[pypi]. Then there'll be no longer a need to ship python-magic[file], and eventually [file] upstream will drop it anyway. > If this would be the case, in my understanding there wouldn't be any need for > an > ITP or transition, but just the possibility for (Debian) packages needing > python-magic[pypi) to use the then compatible python-magic[file]. My goal is to have just one python-magic package that is usable for applications written for both, [file] and [pypi]. Assuming this will come from Adam[pypi], I filed the ITP. But it's all about the goal, not about how it's technically achieved. Hope this made things a bit more clear. Christoph signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Update wokkel?
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 10:49:44AM +0200, W. Martin Borgert wrote: > Hi Angel and team, Hi, > would you mind, if I update wokkel and close #735304 (teams git > repo) and #879712 (Python 3 support)? I would add myself to > uploaders, too. Because there is no official release with these changes, I will write upstream developer and I will tell you. I you want to co-maintain wokkel package we could talk about it. Cheers, > TIA & Cheers signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic
* 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 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 pgps5X1urLPmQ.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
Re: Can't exec "pyversions"
Hi Ondrej! On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 08:18:43AM +0200, Ondrej Tuma wrote: > Yes, > > but how can I tell to dh_ to use py3versions instead of pyversions ? Use pybuild buildsystem: dh $@ --with python3 --buildsystem=pybuild And make sure you have dh-python in build-depends. See pybuild(1) man page for details. -- Dmitry Shachnev signature.asc Description: PGP signature
