Re: Transitionning to the lextudio pysnmp / pyasn1 ecosystem
On September 16, 2023 4:48:46 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 9/15/23 14:03, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Why did you hijack this from the Python team instead of just working with the >> existing maintainers to update the existing packages from the new upstream >> location? >> >> Scott K > >Thanks for replying to the original question ... :) > >If the current maintainer was interested, they had plenty of time to work on >this (it's been nearly a year that lextudio took over). It doesn't seem to be >the case unfortunately. > >If someone wants to take over my work, please do (and write in this thread >saying you're working on it...), it's not too late. I take care of too many >packages already, I'd love if someone stepped in. > It's pretty relevant to your question. If you had instead updated the existing packages from the new upstream, no transition would be needed. Did you check with the existing maintainers to see what they thought? Were they even aware of the new upstream work (it's happened to me before that I was unaware of such a switch)? As is usually the case in Debian, I think the answer is you work with the maintainers to figure out the best solution. Ignoring them and hijacking the packages is not the right answer. Scott K
Re: Transitionning to the lextudio pysnmp / pyasn1 ecosystem
On 9/15/23 14:03, Scott Kitterman wrote: Why did you hijack this from the Python team instead of just working with the existing maintainers to update the existing packages from the new upstream location? Scott K Thanks for replying to the original question ... :) If the current maintainer was interested, they had plenty of time to work on this (it's been nearly a year that lextudio took over). It doesn't seem to be the case unfortunately. If someone wants to take over my work, please do (and write in this thread saying you're working on it...), it's not too late. I take care of too many packages already, I'd love if someone stepped in. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Bug#1052028: please update to pydantic 2.x
Source: pydantic Version: 1.10.4-1 Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-python@lists.debian.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Dear maintainer, I would like to have pydantic updated to the latest 2.x major release, because rstcheck depends on it. The 2.x API has some breaking changes, but according to the pydantic README, version 1.10.4 is shipped as pydantic.v1 legacy module. Therefore, any reverse dependency which is incompatible with the 2.x API can be fixed trivially at import level. As pydantic is only weakly team managed, I am submitting this wishlist bug, but I am willing to do the grunt work for this and provide the necessary team uploads. I cc'd the Python team mailing list as advance notice for the maintainers of affected reverse dependencies. Cheers Timo -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQGzBAEBCgAdFiEEJvtDgpxjkjCIVtam+C8H+466LVkFAmUFgtIACgkQ+C8H+466 LVlPWgwA48KvUKxcwuy9DEQKH6jPaa7g8vNJXIz7EdXnqhUJAVUlDV+7nJ4T5+rJ aesvqHpC6NE76Okkm76UhPk3wwCvsvoww+Ib4OHMKfYt9f1QS3FvQvMRSQWZrUpq +AB0nPfUxc5HepCcH+prshDeUkJ5QmotqeMZTmDbdmZmpHyyF1hAz+0BfgXuJlSg Gpyew8M/qm4IiN04wdG34JwyVTSGutxcHNV8o4cnupp7TuiYpLFVDVYkeJkdWYq1 vFIH80pHfTvDX+2Gk+KlfJA4tcPxvMu2sZm3S4OvIYSq97FeVWLHBUiZmNYboXIe doiAC87EFEo/NTjv1xFXzjKYz27ae/XTpTVgS2FD2U1YUYyYUtr88423QrtvUGnz gDiz+efixPsdy3H26yH1x/Y6qRLQWnag3dyXjPx3xUZgDe0Merhrm5C9Djk8ZKD4 9WuSLNVwXit3n6MMZRZHIdNO/QVxYyFsPSobytXRluroxWVYhOYeSH+uEOhvBYLl qhf317wZ =6qsd -END PGP SIGNATURE-
