Path: csiph.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeders.as203319.net!feeder01.as203319.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Mathias Behrle Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2017 10:30:02 +0200 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Wed Sep 6 08:24:10 2017 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.7 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5 Organization: . MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; boundary="Sig_/O=NCcYW6Z2o0SPb+mViTQkx"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/15169 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20170906102348.6587419c@monsterix.mbehrle.de Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 69 Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Cc: debian-python , Adam Hupp , Christos Zoulas X-Original-Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 10:23:48 +0200 X-Original-Message-ID: <20170906102348.6587419c@monsterix.mbehrle.de> X-Original-References: <20170904174256.40241925@monsterix.mbehrle.de> <1504545692@msgid.manchmal.in-ulm.de> <20170905130017.1eb29221@monsterix.mbehrle.de> <1504628090@msgid.manchmal.in-ulm.de> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9787 --Sig_/O=NCcYW6Z2o0SPb+mViTQkx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 5 Sep 2= 017 18:24:25 +0200): > Mathias Behrle wrote... >=20 > > * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4 S= ep > > 2017 19:38:56 +0200): =20 >=20 > > > The cleanest solution indeed was to bring both upstreams together and > > > ask them to reconcile the APIs and eventually make one of the both > > > implementations obsolete. As things happen such an attempt was started > > > two years ago but appearently never came to a result.[1] =20 > > > > Agreed, that this would be the cleanest solution, but as you say there = is > > little probability, that the two upstreams will work together to merge = their > > implementations. =20 >=20 > Still this should be tried first. Also, I'm not that pessimistic, see > below. So let's bring the parties involved into the loop: [...] Thanks for your additional information and initiative to re-launch the merg= e of the two packages. This reads much better and more optimistic than what I co= uld find until now! Crossing fingers now in the hope for the best outcome for everybody. Cheers, Mathias --=20 Mathias Behrle PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 --Sig_/O=NCcYW6Z2o0SPb+mViTQkx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: Signed by Mathias Behrle iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEErCl+XEa50LYccXaB1tCb5IQFu/YFAlmvsJQACgkQ1tCb5IQF u/Y8zA/9FqKxi+y+nzyPMJ1e2wcmpZHpOpi7C+ZsLQ93YwCfpoAl/AL/O+fDGgnq 5C7k3jcQhVEvIWk7gEkhZNiiaS66vTEKjJaw9uy1y98GPI7jFaSWgZGwZ8ThsO1v ixq7HN3mw4xHW3cnXctWKLg1UpD8zqwMLrfY2k9U9Urki3sMpoirxxx2S7Yo45Bt w4T0grnxhlgc9pwQTF7c2d1sEK+iiLif6KAUXZtijLdtf+Py36tYKAlRd1OS2xii IQ76oEi3mqTxBJpRjC3TkhzxV7/4IZLtI8Vdv3oVg+BzYrPgTYnP9fyVPy+seVNW +Q90ACmancGBmhJJF8vNFV7iXhmkE8ebvlyAyiFefpHotRHoUv9GWCqiHr/VFxoh AeotvtPhXti7gTBAazolxas3KLRWbXp6i4iKuEEiR5xXbS9J2y3wxO+RqZQ1FOUY jVjuwnTwTnCQL4+WFCOl4JTOdoTzmz/NyDNQ7vOe+oicSCAXc3+p6qaCohMSNb3X m+Ejl4Z+KXILrNG46WvXWXLHPjsuFhxTvoj1JFCK+l6EFKXlJcnHLRx/mGYRphVm NA5trFEQiQb6YmvHLw1UCoWxTiCQ/MwXQn7u6T/fP5ag4yf3qMMKAFyGyJ0glOdp qIjnTeFCCNPUGEZ2EOa/LIV2pYrrpB5nePC1XEEL+Yk9rCpxne4= =xZRl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/O=NCcYW6Z2o0SPb+mViTQkx--