Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #16836

django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP?

Path	csiph.com!news.samoylyk.net!gothmog.csi.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Jakob Haufe <sur5r@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP?
Date	Thu, 03 Apr 2025 11:40:02 +0200
Message-ID	<Kxpdg-aJMn-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
X-Original-To	debian-python@lists.debian.org
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Thu Apr 3 09:35:34 2025
Old-Return-Path	<SRS0=fWiT=WV=debian.org=sur5r@norsu.hel.sur5r.net>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-14.197 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, FOURLA=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	using cached result; rate: -4.6
X-Greylist	delayed 575 seconds by postgrey-1.36 at bendel; Thu, 03 Apr 2025 09:35:20 UTC
X-Mailer	Claws Mail 4.3.1 (GTK 3.24.49; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/K=zNOHBx0l6f6UP8ghjSY3q"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/22956
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20250403112529.53f2b4d7@beer
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	65
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Cc	fladi@debian.org
X-Original-Date	Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:25:29 +0200
X-Original-Message-ID	<20250403112529.53f2b4d7@beer>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:16836

Show key headers only | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

(cc'ing fladi as Uploader of django-fsm and django-fsm-admin)

Hi,

I would like to package django-fsm-2[1] which is a fork/continuation
of django-fsm[2] which is already in Debian.

However I'm a bit unsure what's the best way forward. Both call
themselves "django_fsm" internally, so they can't be co-installed.
The only rdep of django-fsm in Debian is python3-django-fsm-admin which
seems to be very inactive upstream.

AIUI, there are two options:

1. Update src:django-fsm to use django-fsm-2 as new upstream. This
   might/will make python3-django-fsm-admin uninstallable or broken, I
   would need to test it. If so, python3-django-fsm-admin will have to
   be RM'd.
2. Package django-fsm-2 as src:django-fsm-2 and add Conflicts:
   python3-django-fsm to it, so they won't be co-installed.

I think option 2 would be friendlier to possible users out there and
also maybe more correct as it will match the name on PyPI.

I'm looking for feedback what's the best way forward as I have no
experience so far handling PyPI vs. module vs. package name
discrepancies.

Cheers,
sur5r

P.S.: Please cc me as I'm not currently subscribed to the list.

[1] https://github.com/django-commons/django-fsm-2
[2] https://github.com/viewflow/django-fsm

-- 
ceterum censeo microsoftem esse delendam.

Back to linux.debian.maint.python | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP? Jakob Haufe <sur5r@debian.org> - 2025-04-03 11:40 +0200
  Re: django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP? Michael Fladischer <michael@fladi.at> - 2025-04-05 10:50 +0200
    Re: django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP? Jakob Haufe <sur5r@debian.org> - 2025-04-05 15:20 +0200
      Re: django-fsm vs. django-fsm-2: Update or ITP? Michael Fladischer <michael@fladi.at> - 2025-04-05 17:40 +0200

csiph-web