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 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: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Jan 5 00:58:46 2016 Old-Return-Path: 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: archive/latest/13378 List-ID: List-URL: 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 On January 4, 2016 2:18:22 PM EST, "W. Martin Borgert" 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Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy 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