Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8059 > unrolled thread

conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  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

#8059 — conflicting packages python-pysocks and python-socksipy

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Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy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)
 - which of the two packages should be removed from Debian?
   (proposal: remove pysocks, just because socksipy is older)
 - shall the other package provide dummy transitional packages?
   (proposal: yes)
 - shall we rename the binary package to python-socks?
   (proposal: yes)

Any ideas or opinions?

TIA & Cheers

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8060

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Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8076

On Monday, January 04, 2016 07:58:26 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> 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.

This is done (#810306).

> > - 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.

So the above changes have been completed.  I noticed that several packages had 
Recommends/Depends on one of the old package names, so I filed bugs.

Bug#810309: torchat 
Bug#810308: python-sleekxmpp
Bug#810307: offlineimap

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8077

On 2016-01-08 01:54, Scott Kitterman wrote:
...
> This is done (#810306).
...
> Bug#810309: torchat 
> Bug#810308: python-sleekxmpp
> Bug#810307: offlineimap

Scott, many thanks for filing the bugs and fixing python-socksipy!

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web