Path: csiph.com!news.redatomik.org!news.muarf.org!news.ecp.fr!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Enabling Python bindings for jellyfish
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:50:03 +0100
Message-ID: <qLPwn-7sO-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <qKPyp-zX-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qL7OF-4A4-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qLPmF-7nK-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debian@kitterman.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.13.3 (Linux/3.13.0-71-generic; KDE/4.13.3; x86_64; ; )
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1621534.G6o5vhXuJ0"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 148
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8035


--nextPart1621534.G6o5vhXuJ0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thursday, December 31, 2015 06:32:43 PM Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 02:07:05PM -0500, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Diego M. Rodriguez
> > <diego.plan9@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 12:56:20PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > > > I think the respective maintainers should talk and then discuss=
 with
> > > their upstreams as the collision potential isn't just in Debian.
> > >=20
> > > I'm chiming in as the (prospective) maintainer of the ITP
> > > python-jellyfish
> > > package, just to note that I have discussed it with Andreas [1] a=
nd
> > > fully
> > > agreed to rename "my" package. The choice of name was due to not =
being
> > > aware
> > > of the Python bindings on the existing DNA-jelyfish package (and =
in part
> > > also
> > > due to my inexperience on these matters), and I have contacted up=
stream
> > > earlier today in the hopes of coming up with a good alternative n=
ame.
> > >=20
> > > I'd be happy to follow up on the discussion with upstream once I =
get a
> > > reply,
> > > in order to find out if he would be open to solving the conflict =
at a
> > > "higher"
> > > level.
> > >=20
> > > Best regards,
> > >=20
> > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D806716#42=

> > > --
> > > Diego M. Rodriguez
> > > 36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B  FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232

> > > > > That won't solve the problem, since both will provide the pyt=
hon=20
> > module jellyfish
>=20
> Fair point indeed, and I fully agree that ideally the problem should =
be
> solved at the python module level.
>=20
> I'm wondering if you or other senior, more experienced developers cou=
ld
> suggest what would be the recommended solution for the namespace conf=
lict,
> taking into account:
>=20
> a) DNA-jellyfish is an stablished Debian package since 2011 [1]
> b) STR-jellyfish is on PyPI [2] since 2010 (version 0.1)
> c) both packages started their Github repos around the same time (sum=
mer
> 2010) d) both packages seem to be a bit "niche" (popcon stats for
> "jellyfish" [3] and "beets" [4], the package that would depend on
> STR-jellyfish, seem to hint that they are both modestly used within D=
ebian
> and cater to specific groups of users)
> e) other considerations I'm probably missing!
>=20
> I would personally place a bit more weight on the fact that STR-jelly=
fish is
> already on PyPI (based on the rationale that it is arguably the "de f=
acto"
> repository for Python packaging); but, again, I am relatively new to =
Debian
> practices and arguing for keeping consistency within the Debian repos=
itory
> seems reasonable to me as well.
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D644925
> [2] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jellyfish
> [3] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=3Djellyfish
> [4] https://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=3Dbeets

Here's what Debian Policy has to say on the matter:

10.1. Binaries
=2D-------------

     Two different packages must not install programs with different
     functionality but with the same filenames.  (The case of two progr=
ams
     having the same functionality but different implementations is han=
dled
     via "alternatives" or the "Conflicts" mechanism.  See Section 3.9,=

     `Maintainer Scripts' and Section 7.4, `Conflicting binary packages=
 -
     `Conflicts'' respectively.) If this case happens, one of the progr=
ams
     must be renamed.  The maintainers should report this to the
     `debian-devel' mailing list and try to find a consensus about whic=
h
     program will have to be renamed.  If a consensus cannot be reached=
,
     _both_ programs must be renamed.


That bit of policy doesn't officially kick in yet since these aren't bo=
th in the=20
archive yet.  The policy is about consensus finding and not winning and=
 losing. =20
That's why I recommended discussing with the upstreams (and hopefully g=
etting=20
them in direct communication).

Scott K

P.S.  Fixed top posting
--nextPart1621534.G6o5vhXuJ0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=H3C1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1621534.G6o5vhXuJ0--