Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8060

Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy

Path	csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From	Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy
Date	Tue, 05 Jan 2016 02:00:02 +0100
Message-ID	<qNo8G-2FT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<qNiPF-7CQ-29@gated-at.bofh.it>
X-Mailbox-Line	From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Jan 5 00:58:46 2016
Old-Return-Path	<debian@kitterman.com>
X-Amavis-Spam-Status	No, score=-7 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
X-Policyd-Weight	using cached result; rate: -5
Dkim-Signature	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=kitterman.com; s=201409; t=1451955509; bh=W+VWoFxveRB8AkUAfn6YdkE/KqnDMzccqBqzyssSfO0=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Date:To:From; b=VgBdKsxzinltY1hmb8JNvlfOOAe5x9dA0XCy4IZ0GFjsg9ZZFaPL+24TFOZPF/0Ll zcleLugOkQO+eJoFFG/IekUdS4FF8szME5KJTuuvguui1KIeV6Xrtqyayfb8Wewwu6 X5UtXuYGcRVngicZgsOpl3yMZnKzqkpe6wSJW5bc=
User-Agent	K-9 Mail for Android
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding	8bit
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Mailing-List	<debian-python@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/13378
List-ID	<debian-python.lists.debian.org>
List-URL	<https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/>
List-Archive	https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/65CB1FE6-6D8D-4626-BC33-0A6065703F98@kitterman.com
Approved	robomod@news.nic.it
Lines	38
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender	robomod@news.nic.it
X-Original-Date	Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:58:26 -0500
X-Original-Message-ID	<65CB1FE6-6D8D-4626-BC33-0A6065703F98@kitterman.com>
X-Original-References	<20160104191822.GA9605@fama>
Xref	csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:8060

Show key headers only | View raw

On January 4, 2016 2:18:22 PM EST, "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>TLDR: Both are the same, providing the "socks" module. We should
>remove one of them. Maybe renaming the other to python-socks.
>
>Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy
>package. This involved following a new upstream. Later I was
>informed, that the new upstream was already packaged under the
>name python-pysocks.
>
>Questions:
>
> - shall we remove one of the package?
>   (proposal: yes)

Yes.  Please file the RM bug.

> - which of the two packages should be removed from Debian?
>   (proposal: remove pysocks, just because socksipy is older)

Reasonable.  Also both maintained by DPMT, so we can just pick.

> - shall the other package provide dummy transitional packages?
>   (proposal: yes)

Actually, based on Python Policy both have wrong binary names.  The binaries should be python/python3-socks since they provide the socks module.  No need to rename the source.  I think transitional packages are only needed if there are rdepends that need updating and the can't be done now.

> - shall we rename the binary package to python-socks?
>   (proposal: yes)

Definitely.  See above.

>Any ideas or opinions?

Scott K

Thread

conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2016-01-04 20:20 +0100
  Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-01-05 02:00 +0100
    Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-01-08 08:00 +0100
      Re: conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy "W. Martin Borgert" <debacle@debian.org> - 2016-01-09 17:30 +0100

csiph-web