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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #8299 > unrolled thread

Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2016-03-15 18:00 +0100
    Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts "Diego M. Rodriguez" <diego.plan9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:40 +0100
      Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2016-03-15 20:50 +0100
      Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2016-03-17 18:40 +0100
        Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts "Diego M. Rodriguez" <diego.plan9@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:10 +0100

#8299 — Bug#806716: Jellyfish name conflicts

Hi Diego,

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 04:55:36PM +0100, Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> hope everything is going fine! I'm writing you in the hopes of pinging
> you about the status of the solving of the module naming conflict of
> the jellyfish packages (informally and hopefully politely!).

There is no need for an "informal" contact - we can also do it formally
(== openly - thus I was CCing the ITP bug as well as the Python list).
(And I confirm you are contacting politely, which is always welcome ;-))
 
> I could not find any recent public activity in that front, although in
> the meantime "my" jellyfish upstream has released a new version [1]
> which I'm in the process of packaging, so I thought it would be a nice
> time to contact you hoping to get a better feeling of where we stand at
> and if the DNA-jellyfish upstream author had the time and energy to take
> a look at the Python module renaming. I did notice that a new version
> was released a few days ago [2], although it does not seem that there
> are changes related to swig/ or the Python modules.

I need to confirm that something slipped through by chance which was not
really intended but is very related.  The python3-jellyfish package of
the DNA-Jellyfish packaging remained in Git since our discussion was
stalled and recently - as you realised - a bug fix release of it came
out[2].  So another maintainer of the Debian Med team upgraded to the
new version and uploaded the package which is now in the new queue[3].

This was not really intended but now it happened.  We now need to
decide about the two options:

  1. Cancel the upload to new and drop the python3-jellyfish package
  2. Just leave this as is and follow the advise of the jellyfish
     author quoted on top of this mail to the python list[4] to
     rename just the Python module.

I think option 2. is better for all parts and if you agree I'd
immediately cancel the upload to new.

Kind regards and sorry for the confusion

    Andreas.

> [1] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/jellyfish/0.5.3
> [2] https://github.com/gmarcais/Jellyfish/releases/tag/v2.2.5

[3] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/jellyfish_2.2.5-1.html
[4] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2016/01/msg00001.html

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8300

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

Hello Andreas,

> This was not really intended but now it happened.  We now need to
> decide about the two options:
> 
>   1. Cancel the upload to new and drop the python3-jellyfish package
>   2. Just leave this as is and follow the advise of the jellyfish
>      author quoted on top of this mail to the python list[4] to
>      rename just the Python module.
> 
> I think option 2. is better for all parts and if you agree I'd
> immediately cancel the upload to new.

thanks for the detailed clarification on the events surrounding the
package and the prompt response!

I would be happy to go with either option (personally leaning towards
option 2 as well), and basically rely on your expertise - the upstream
string-jellyfish author has explicitely mentioned that he has no strong
opinion on the Debian package name and I don't have either.

With this in mind, I'm wondering if this would be a good time to rename
this ITP and the RFS (and the mentors package, etc) to the hopefully
final Debian package name ("python-jellyfishstr"?)?

Best regards,
-- 
Diego M. Rodriguez
36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B  FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232

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

#8301

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:34:39PM +0100, Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> Hello Andreas,
> 
> > This was not really intended but now it happened.  We now need to
> > decide about the two options:
> > 
> >   1. Cancel the upload to new and drop the python3-jellyfish package
> >   2. Just leave this as is and follow the advise of the jellyfish
> >      author quoted on top of this mail to the python list[4] to
> >      rename just the Python module.
> > 
> > I think option 2. is better for all parts and if you agree I'd
> > immediately cancel the upload to new.
> 
> thanks for the detailed clarification on the events surrounding the
> package and the prompt response!
> 
> I would be happy to go with either option (personally leaning towards
> option 2 as well), and basically rely on your expertise - the upstream
> string-jellyfish author has explicitely mentioned that he has no strong
> opinion on the Debian package name and I don't have either.

So I'm waiting for other peoples opinion.
 
> With this in mind, I'm wondering if this would be a good time to rename
> this ITP and the RFS (and the mentors package, etc) to the hopefully
> final Debian package name ("python-jellyfishstr"?)?

I'd wait for a final decision here and than ask for sponsering.

Kind regards

     Andreas. 



-- 
http://fam-tille.de

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

#8305

Hi Diego,

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 07:34:39PM +0100, Diego M. Rodriguez wrote:
> > This was not really intended but now it happened.  We now need to
> > decide about the two options:
> > 
> >   1. Cancel the upload to new and drop the python3-jellyfish package
> >   2. Just leave this as is and follow the advise of the jellyfish
> >      author quoted on top of this mail to the python list[4] to
> >      rename just the Python module.
> > 
> > I think option 2. is better for all parts and if you agree I'd
> > immediately cancel the upload to new.
> 
> thanks for the detailed clarification on the events surrounding the
> package and the prompt response!
> 
> I would be happy to go with either option (personally leaning towards
> option 2 as well), and basically rely on your expertise - the upstream
> string-jellyfish author has explicitely mentioned that he has no strong
> opinion on the Debian package name and I don't have either.

Hmmmm, ftpmaster was fast - now python-jellyfish is accepted.  This only
leaves us option 2 without fiddling around to much.
 
> With this in mind, I'm wondering if this would be a good time to rename
> this ITP and the RFS (and the mentors package, etc) to the hopefully
> final Debian package name ("python-jellyfishstr"?)?

The latter sounds sensible.  Sorry for all the confusion and leaving you
alone a bit with this issue.

Kind regards

      Andreas.



-- 
http://fam-tille.de

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

#8306

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

Hello Andreas,

> Hmmmm, ftpmaster was fast - now python-jellyfish is accepted.  This only
> leaves us option 2 without fiddling around to much.

I noticed - and feels like yet another argument in favour of option 2.
If there is something I can do to help with the renaming of the DNA
jellyfish python module (collaborating on the upstream repository,
gathering more opinions on the matter, or anything else) I'd be willing
to lend a hand, just let me know!

> > With this in mind, I'm wondering if this would be a good time to rename
> > this ITP and the RFS (and the mentors package, etc) to the hopefully
> > final Debian package name ("python-jellyfishstr"?)?
> 
> The latter sounds sensible.  Sorry for all the confusion and leaving you
> alone a bit with this issue.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on the package renaming issue, and no
worries at all - I really apreciate your guidance and efforts on helping
move this issue forward.

Best regards,
-- 
Diego M. Rodriguez
36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B  FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web