Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!news.unit0.net!news.panservice.it!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Adam Hupp <adam@hupp.org>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 20:30:02 +0200
Message-ID: <uwA78-4eO-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <um26J-7EI-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <um3vQ-8os-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <umjTZ-1V1-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <umoTD-55T-11@gated-at.bofh.it> <umDSG-7ph-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <adam.hupp@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 46
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:9909

Sorry about the slow response.  This has been a pain for a while.  I
have a provisional diff to merge the two packages.  Will give it some
testing and pass a branch to you folks to take a look.  Ideally the
upstream file package would take it over.

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> wrote:
> * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 5 Sep 2017
>   18:24:25 +0200):
>
>> Mathias Behrle wrote...
>>
>> > * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4 Sep
>> > 2017 19:38:56 +0200):
>>
>> > > 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]
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>> 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 merge of
> the two packages. This reads much better and more optimistic than what I could
> find until now! Crossing fingers now in the hope for the best outcome for
> everybody.
>
> Cheers,
> Mathias
>
> --
>
>     Mathias Behrle
>     PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
>     AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6



-- 
Adam Hupp | http://hupp.org/adam/