Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 02:52:27PM +1000, Jonathon Love wrote:
> so the advice i received regarding the name was that i must get it renamed
> upstream[1]. i don't think this will be possible because:
> 
>  - upstream is an established package, present in PYPI and macports
>  - the developer is MIA

this "developer is MIA" should be a good reason by itself.  It's never
great to introduce in the archive a software where the development
stopped.

> (additionally, the official Protocol Buffers 3 supports Python 3 [2] and
> should be coming to debian soon[3]. as the main point of this package was to
> allow the use of protocol buffers with Python 3, this reduces the need for
> this package).

Agree.
Also, introducing both would mean having in the archive 2 things that do
the exact same thing.

> hence, i propose to withdraw the package, the RFS and the ITP.

This seems the better solution, yes.

> also happy to
> proceed, the work is basically done, but i can't see a way to make it work.

For all the reason you exponed, I think the best way is to withdraw the
package.

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Jonathon Love]

hi,

so the advice i received regarding the name was that i must get it 
renamed upstream[1]. i don't think this will be possible because:


 - upstream is an established package, present in PYPI and macports
 - the developer is MIA

(additionally, the official Protocol Buffers 3 supports Python 3 [2] and 
should be coming to debian soon[3]. as the main point of this package 
was to allow the use of protocol buffers with Python 3, this reduces the 
need for this package).


hence, i propose to withdraw the package, the RFS and the ITP. also 
happy to proceed, the work is basically done, but i can't see a way to 
make it work.


with thanks

jonathon


[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2016/05/msg00462.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2016/05/msg00491.html
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=795841

Re: Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Gianfranco Costamagna]

Hi,

>I know exactly what Mattia felt. :-(


git reflog is a good friend in this case :)


G.

Re: Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Tiago Ilieve]

Jonathon,

On 18 May 2016 at 05:52, Jonathon Love  wrote:
>> umh, you force pushed everything, master, upstream and pristine-tar
>> branches.  WHY?  what did you do?
>
> oh, sorry, i never intended for you to look at that repo, assuming you'd
> look at the debian-mentors one.

This is something I've seen on "debian-mentors" mailing list more than
one time and we should urge people to don't do it: if you pushed
changes to a public repository please, never, ever "--force" a new
push. It's OK if you are doing this on a private location for yourself
(as the forced push won't affect anyone else), but it doesn't make any
sense to mention a repository in a public mailing list and then assume
that no one would clone/fetch it.

I know exactly what Mattia felt. :-(

Regards,
Tiago.

-- 
Tiago "Myhro" Ilieve
Blog: https://blog.myhro.info/
GitHub: https://github.com/myhro
LinkedIn: https://br.linkedin.com/in/myhro
Montes Claros - MG, Brasil

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Jonathon Love]

umh, you force pushed everything, master, upstream and pristine-tar
branches.  WHY?  what did you do?
oh, sorry, i never intended for you to look at that repo, assuming you'd 
look at the debian-mentors one.

And still it doesn't build, if that was meant to fix it.
Without thinking of it I already overwrote the older files, so I can't
diff anymore :S
yeah, i've got it building on debian now, but i'm waiting for 
confirmation of what it should be called before pushing. i've asked on 
d-mentors.


sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks for your patience.

jonathon

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Mattia Rizzolo]

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 01:07:05PM +1000, Jonathon Love wrote:
> thanks for the review, and sorry for the embarrassing "does not build"
> situation. i was packaging on ubuntu, and my experience has been that if it
> works there, it will work on debian - but apparently not, i'll be more
> careful in future.

umh, you force pushed everything, master, upstream and pristine-tar
branches.  WHY?  what did you do?
And still it doesn't build, if that was meant to fix it.
Without thinking of it I already overwrote the older files, so I can't
diff anymore :S

> i'm actually writing to ask your advice about the name of the package.
> 
> upstream is called protobuf3, but it's an implementation of protocol buffers
> 2 for python 3

Then name made me wonder too.
I would like for somebody else on the mentors list to comment on it, but
also keep in mind that there is a python policy that says the name
should be python(3)-${module name}, that is, whatever you import.

> python3-pr0ger-protobuf3
> 
> after the developer's nick:

This golang-style name would actually turn me mad :|

-- 
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540  .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#823478: python3-protobuf3

[Jonathon Love]

hi matt,

thanks for the review, and sorry for the embarrassing "does not build" 
situation. i was packaging on ubuntu, and my experience has been that if 
it works there, it will work on debian - but apparently not, i'll be 
more careful in future.


i'm actually writing to ask your advice about the name of the package.

upstream is called protobuf3, but it's an implementation of protocol 
buffers 2 for python 3


i'm concerned that by calling it python3-protobuf3 people will think:

a) it is the "official" google protocol buffers

b) it is for protocol buffers version 3

¿what do you think about calling the package

python3-pr0ger-protobuf3

after the developer's nick:

https://github.com/Pr0Ger/protobuf3

with thanks

jonathon