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

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #9778 > unrolled thread

Namespace conflict for python-magic

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

Contents

  Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-09-04 18:10 +0200
    Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2017-09-04 18:20 +0200
    Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2017-09-04 19:40 +0200
      Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-09-05 13:10 +0200
        Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2017-09-05 18:30 +0200
          Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-09-06 10:30 +0200
            Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Adam Hupp <adam@hupp.org> - 2017-10-03 20:30 +0200
              Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-10-05 12:20 +0200
                Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2017-10-06 08:40 +0200
                  Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-10-06 09:30 +0200
                    Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2017-10-27 21:50 +0200
                Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mathiasb@m9s.biz> - 2017-10-27 14:50 +0200
                  Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Adam Hupp <adam@hupp.org> - 2017-12-04 21:20 +0100
                    Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-12-04 23:10 +0100
                    Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2018-01-01 15:10 +0100
                      Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-06 20:30 +0100
                    Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-08 12:00 +0100
                      Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-08 13:30 +0100
                        Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Adam Hupp <adam@hupp.org> - 2018-01-15 07:50 +0100
                          Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-16 20:20 +0100
                            Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-16 20:50 +0100
                      Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-14 21:40 +0100
                        Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2018-01-14 23:10 +0100
                          Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-15 09:40 +0100
                            Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Bug#877849: Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2018-01-19 19:10 +0100
                              Re: [tryton-debian] Bug#877849: Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2018-01-21 17:30 +0100
        Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2017-09-05 18:50 +0200
          Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> - 2017-09-06 11:00 +0200
    Bug#877849: ITP: python-magic -- A python wrapper for libmagic Christoph Biedl <debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> - 2017-10-06 08:40 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#9778 — Namespace conflict for python-magic

Hi Christoph, hi folks,

there exists an odd namespace conflict for python-magic.

Current python(3)-magic in Debian is built from source package 'file'[0].
According to the included setup.py the package for the python bindings are
published as 'file-magic'[1] and are available on PyPi under this name[2].

OTOH the package providing python-magic on PyPi[3] is provided by another
Upstream[4].

The cleanest solution for me would look like
- package file in Debian should provide python(3)-file-magic
- python-magic should be the package name corresponding to the PyPi package
  python-magic[4]

The realization of this solution would create some substantial overhead.
Therefore it will be more adequate to find a different, but nevertheless
meaningful package name for python-magic from [4]. The ugly, but best name
currently on my mind would be python-python-magic.

Any thoughts?

Cheers, 
Mathias


[0] https://sources.debian.net/src/file/
[1] https://sources.debian.net/src/file/1:5.31-1/python/setup.py/
[2] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/file-magic/0.3.0
[3] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-magic/
[4] http://github.com/ahupp/python-magic



-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#9780

On September 4, 2017 11:42:56 AM EDT, Mathias Behrle <mbehrle@debian.org> wrote:
>
>Hi Christoph, hi folks,
>
>there exists an odd namespace conflict for python-magic.
>
>Current python(3)-magic in Debian is built from source package
>'file'[0].
>According to the included setup.py the package for the python bindings
>are
>published as 'file-magic'[1] and are available on PyPi under this
>name[2].
>
>OTOH the package providing python-magic on PyPi[3] is provided by
>another
>Upstream[4].
>
>The cleanest solution for me would look like
>- package file in Debian should provide python(3)-file-magic
>- python-magic should be the package name corresponding to the PyPi
>package
>  python-magic[4]
>
>The realization of this solution would create some substantial
>overhead.
>Therefore it will be more adequate to find a different, but
>nevertheless
>meaningful package name for python-magic from [4]. The ugly, but best
>name
>currently on my mind would be python-python-magic.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Cheers, 
>Mathias
>
>
>[0] https://sources.debian.net/src/file/
>[1] https://sources.debian.net/src/file/1:5.31-1/python/setup.py/
>[2] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/file-magic/0.3.0
>[3] https://pypi.python.org/pypi/python-magic/
>[4] http://github.com/ahupp/python-magic

There is a nearly equivalent situation with the "dns" namespace.  There are two completely unrelated packages; one provides "DNS" and the other provides "dns".  Obviously they can't both be python-dns in Debian.  One is python{3}-dns and the other is python{3}-dnspython.

If you went down that route, instead of python-python-magic, you'd get python-magicpython.  Personally, I like that a little better, but it's a matter of taste.  Policy doesn't provide any guidance for this case.

Scott K

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

#9782

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

Mathias Behrle wrote...

> Current python(3)-magic in Debian is built from source package 'file'[0].
(...)
> OTOH the package providing python-magic on PyPi[3] is provided by another
> Upstream[4].

... and I assume the APIs are not identical?

> The cleanest solution for me would look like
> - package file in Debian should provide python(3)-file-magic
> - python-magic should be the package name corresponding to the PyPi package
>   python-magic[4]

This would result in users of the current python-magic (from file) would
be forced into the other one. Unless we (as in Debian) can guarantee
this will work in each and every use case, I fail to see why this should
be considered a clean solution.

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]

Trying to address this conflict in Debian is always only second best. If
this is the only feasible way, it still should leave a choice to users
so they can install the implementation of their own preference. Co-
installability of both package was certainly nice-to-have but will
probably impossible for technical reasons.

    Christoph

[1] The file mailing list server is currently down, so I cannot provide
    URLs. The Message-IDs are 
    <CAJTao09xATQYZ3qR-4CR+oOrrqB_W=kYUJV8esOe4b3bdA5nwA@mail.gmail.com>
    <20151020133008.9B79517FDAB@rebar.astron.com>

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

#9784

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

* Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4 Sep 2017
  19:38:56 +0200):

> Mathias Behrle wrote...
> 
> > Current python(3)-magic in Debian is built from source package 'file'[0].  
> (...)
> > OTOH the package providing python-magic on PyPi[3] is provided by another
> > Upstream[4].  
> 
> ... and I assume the APIs are not identical?

Indeed.
 
> > The cleanest solution for me would look like
> > - package file in Debian should provide python(3)-file-magic
> > - python-magic should be the package name corresponding to the PyPi package
> >   python-magic[4]  
> 
> This would result in users of the current python-magic (from file) would
> be forced into the other one. Unless we (as in Debian) can guarantee
> this will work in each and every use case, I fail to see why this should
> be considered a clean solution.

When saying clean solution I talked about the solution inside Debian.

I think it could be made to work, but the result doesn't justify the effort and
still wouldn't solve the conflicting namespace.
 
> 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.

> Trying to address this conflict in Debian is always only second best. If
> this is the only feasible way, it still should leave a choice to users
> so they can install the implementation of their own preference. Co-
> installability of both package was certainly nice-to-have but will
> probably impossible for technical reasons.

It is indeed an ugly mess. For me both packages must be co-installable, because
the relative rdepends must be usable at the same time.

Reading through the issues of python-magic (as on PyPi) the problem of course
dates from the very beginning[2], spans multiple issues[3] with currently still
open this one[4].

So finally I am still quite undetermined what to do to get the actual release
of relatorio packaged[5] (it will be needed for the next release of Tryton). For
now there is only one usage of python-magic[6], so probably best to patch
relatorio for now to use file-magic...

> [1] The file mailing list server is currently down, so I cannot provide
>     URLs. The Message-IDs are 
>     <CAJTao09xATQYZ3qR-4CR+oOrrqB_W=kYUJV8esOe4b3bdA5nwA@mail.gmail.com>
>     <20151020133008.9B79517FDAB@rebar.astron.com>

Still down:(, If you could provide some content for me that would be nice.

Cheers,
Mathias

[2] https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/issues/21
[3] https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/issues/57
    https://github.com/LibreTime/libretime/issues/166
    ...
[4] https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/issues/33
[5] http://hg.tryton.org/relatorio/file/tip/setup.py


-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

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

#9785

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

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:

Hello

* Christos Zoulas for file(1), and
* Adam Hupp for python-magic.

A while ago, almost two years by now, there was a short discussion on
the file(1) mailing list concerning a merge of the libmagic python
bindings. In summary, Adam proposed to end the long-standing
confusion[2], Christos agreed and suggested a possible solution[3].

After that however, nothing visible happened.

But now I'd like to give that idea a push. Mostly since on the Debian
Python mailing list (also in Cc:) a proposal was made to exchange
python-magic in Debian, from the file(1) to the PyPi one. Wearing the
maintainer's hat for file(1) in Debian, I opposed this for the sole
reason this will break applications that rely on the file(1) version.

Resolving this issue upstream will bring benefit for everybody, even at
the risk of a bumpy but one-time only transition. What is the status of
your project? Do you need some input, suggestions or other incentive
to finish this project?

Cheers,
    Christoph

> > [1] The file mailing list server is currently down, so I cannot provide
> >     URLs. The Message-IDs are
> >     <CAJTao09xATQYZ3qR-4CR+oOrrqB_W=kYUJV8esOe4b3bdA5nwA@mail.gmail.com>
> >     <20151020133008.9B79517FDAB@rebar.astron.com>
>
> Still down:(, If you could provide some content for me that would be nice.

Certainly:

[2]
[ Adam: ]
(...)
| Sadly, this has led to regular confusion for our users.  I'd be happy
| to shutdown my version to avoid more confusion but it seems to be
| fairly widely used (200k downloads from pypi last month).  It also has
| a number of fixes for various issues:  libmagic bugs, thread safety,
| support for other platforms, etc.
|
| I'd like to gauge interest in merging these bindings into a single
| codebase.  Specifically, this would mean:
|
| - merge magic.py from each package to produce something reasonably
| close to API-compatible to both, with some methods marked as
| deprecated where it makes sense.
| - the merged package would live under the python-magic name in pypi
| and in the `file` source distribution.
|
| I think this would be ideal for everyone involved, but wanted to gauge
| your interest before I went to the trouble.
(...)

[3]
[ Christos: ]
| Sure, it would be nice for the users if there was a definitive
| python package that had the best features from both. Someone recently
| filed a bug report about it: http://bugs.gw.com/view.php?id=477.
| Why don't you go ahead and merge them and I will copy the result
| over mine, and put a link to your package in the file sources (or
| even delete mine, and put a link to your package).

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

#9787

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

* 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

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

#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/

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

#9921

* Adam Hupp: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 3 Oct 2017
  11:06:38 -0700):

That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff.

Best regards,
Mathias


> 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  
> 
> 
> 



-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

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

#9923

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

Mathias Behrle wrote...

> That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff.

+1

In order to control the transition, I've filed in ITP (intent to
package) for Adam's python-magic as https://bugs.debian.org/877849

    Christoph

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

#9924

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

* Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Fri, 6 Oct 2017
  08:34:04 +0200):

> Mathias Behrle wrote...
> 
> > That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff.  
> 
> +1
> 
> In order to control the transition, I've filed in ITP (intent to
> package) for Adam's python-magic as https://bugs.debian.org/877849

Did I misunderstand
| Ideally the upstream file package would take it over.
?

Perhaps a little bit early, because we didn't see Adams solution, but I would
like to understand the goals. Am I right that the intentions are

- Add a compatibility layer to python-magic[file] to support the feature set of
  python-magic[pypi]
- Provide in some way on Pypi the same featureset for file-magic and
  python-magic

?

If this would be the case, in my understanding there wouldn't be any need for an
ITP or transition, but just the possibility for (Debian) packages needing
python-magic[pypi) to use the then compatible python-magic[file].

Best regards,
Mathias

-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

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

#9965

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

[ I'm not lost, just way too occupied with other issues, sorry ]

Mathias Behrle wrote...

> * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Fri, 6 Oct 2017
>   08:34:04 +0200):
> 
> > In order to control the transition, I've filed in ITP (intent to
> > package) for Adam's python-magic as https://bugs.debian.org/877849
> 
> Did I misunderstand
> | Ideally the upstream file package would take it over.
> ?
> 
> Perhaps a little bit early, because we didn't see Adams solution, but I would
> like to understand the goals. Am I right that the intentions are
> 
> - Add a compatibility layer to python-magic[file] to support the feature set of
>   python-magic[pypi]
> - Provide in some way on Pypi the same featureset for file-magic and
>   python-magic

As I understand, Adam will provide a [file] compatibility layer to
python-magic[pypi]. Then there'll be no longer a need to ship
python-magic[file], and eventually [file] upstream will drop it anyway.

> If this would be the case, in my understanding there wouldn't be any need for an
> ITP or transition, but just the possibility for (Debian) packages needing
> python-magic[pypi) to use the then compatible python-magic[file].

My goal is to have just one python-magic package that is usable for
applications written for both, [file] and [pypi]. Assuming this will
come from Adam[pypi], I filed the ITP. But it's all about the goal, not
about how it's technically achieved.

Hope this made things a bit more clear.

    Christoph

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

#9963 — Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

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

* Mathias Behrle: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for
  python-magic" (Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0200):

Hi Adam,

are there any news on the subject?

The release of Tryton, that will require python-magic is scheduled for next
week. It would be a great service to our users and simplify things a lot, if we
had a common python-magic in place. Please let us know, if we can help with the
planned merge.

Thanks,
Mathias


> * Adam Hupp: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 3 Oct 2017
>   11:06:38 -0700):
> 
> That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff.
> 
> Best regards,
> Mathias
> 
> 
> > 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    
> > 
> > 
> >   
> 
> 
> 



-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

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

#9990 — Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

I've pushed an update here:

https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat

It includes a copy of libmagic's bindings, wrapped in deprecation
warnings.  So apps should work regardless of which they depend on.
Could you take a look and see if this works for your case?

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Mathias Behrle <mathiasb@m9s.biz> wrote:
> * Mathias Behrle: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for
>   python-magic" (Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0200):
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> are there any news on the subject?
>
> The release of Tryton, that will require python-magic is scheduled for next
> week. It would be a great service to our users and simplify things a lot, if we
> had a common python-magic in place. Please let us know, if we can help with the
> planned merge.
>
> Thanks,
> Mathias
>
>
>> * Adam Hupp: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 3 Oct 2017
>>   11:06:38 -0700):
>>
>> That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Mathias
>>
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
>     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/

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

#9991 — Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

* Adam Hupp: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4
  Dec 2017 11:58:22 -0800):

Thanks a lot, Adam, I will take a look ASAP.

> I've pushed an update here:
> 
> https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat
> 
> It includes a copy of libmagic's bindings, wrapped in deprecation
> warnings.  So apps should work regardless of which they depend on.
> Could you take a look and see if this works for your case?
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Mathias Behrle <mathiasb@m9s.biz> wrote:
> > * Mathias Behrle: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for
> >   python-magic" (Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0200):
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > are there any news on the subject?
> >
> > The release of Tryton, that will require python-magic is scheduled for next
> > week. It would be a great service to our users and simplify things a lot,
> > if we had a common python-magic in place. Please let us know, if we can
> > help with the planned merge.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathias
> >
> >  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >     Mathias Behrle
> >     PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
> >     AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6  
> 
> 
> 



-- 

    Mathias Behrle ✧ Debian Developer
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

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

#10020 — Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

* Adam Hupp: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4
  Dec 2017 11:58:22 -0800):

Hi Christoph,

while approaching the test for relatorio I got aware, that the result won't be
very significant, because relatorio depends anyway on python-magic[pypi]. To
get meaningful results it would be much better to get the compatibility layer
tested with packages depending on python-magic[file-magic]. 
What do you think will be the best way? I think best could be to get a prepared
package with the compatibility layer on experimental and to request the
dependencies to give it a try.

Best wishes for hte New Year!

Mathias

> I've pushed an update here:
> 
> https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat
> 
> It includes a copy of libmagic's bindings, wrapped in deprecation
> warnings.  So apps should work regardless of which they depend on.
> Could you take a look and see if this works for your case?
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Mathias Behrle <mathiasb@m9s.biz> wrote:
> > * Mathias Behrle: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for
> >   python-magic" (Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0200):
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > are there any news on the subject?
> >
> > The release of Tryton, that will require python-magic is scheduled for next
> > week. It would be a great service to our users and simplify things a lot,
> > if we had a common python-magic in place. Please let us know, if we can
> > help with the planned merge.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mathias
> >
> >  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
>  [...]  
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >     Mathias Behrle
> >     PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
> >     AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6  
> 
> 
> 



-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6
    AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71  7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6

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

#10022 — Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

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

[
    It's getting rather Debian specific, so trimming recipicient list.
    I'd prefer to discuss this on debian-python but keep me in Cc:,
    thanks.
]

Mathias Behrle wrote...

> while approaching the test for relatorio I got aware, that the result won't be
> very significant, because relatorio depends anyway on python-magic[pypi]. To
> get meaningful results it would be much better to get the compatibility layer
> tested with packages depending on python-magic[file-magic].
> What do you think will be the best way? I think best could be to get a prepared
> package with the compatibility layer on experimental and to request the
> dependencies to give it a try.

Sorry for not getting back earlier. My plan is indeed to package [pypi]
python-magic and upload to experimental. Then testers could use that
version and look for changed behaviour.

I'll try to get something done ASAP.

    Christoph

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

#10023 — Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

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

Adam Hupp wrote...

> I've pushed an update here:
>
> https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat
>
> It includes a copy of libmagic's bindings, wrapped in deprecation
> warnings.  So apps should work regardless of which they depend on.
> Could you take a look and see if this works for your case?

There are two glitches, you got mails in private about these.
Doing a first round of tests showed regressions so far.

Hence, here is a preliminary packaging of python-magic for Debian:

  https://www.in-ulm.de/~cbiedl/debian/python-magic/python-magic_0.4.15-1~exp1.dsc

Debianites, please give it a try.

About the deprecation warning: I figured out right now (at least for
Debian) it would mostly scare users. Once Christos acknowledges your
work (hopefully) and deprecates the [file] python-magic implementation,
it's about time to alert authors of programs that use python-magic but
no earlier.

Therefore I created a switch that mutes that warning unless a
PYTHONMAGIC_WARN_DEPRECATED environment variable is set, patch below.
Using this switch, users can already test whether a particular
application needs an adjustment for the [pypi] API.

At least in Debian, I expect this transition to take two years anyway.

Cheers,

    Christoph

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

#10024 — Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

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

From the popular series "Leaving fatal mistakes in spite of
proof-reading three times":

Christoph Biedl wrote...

> Doing a first round of tests showed
                                       no
>                                         regressions so far.

You may stop panicking now :)

    Christoph

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

#10049 — Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

Whew, I was worried for a moment :)  I've pushed an update to the
branch (note: will require a force pull if you already have a
checkout).

https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat

Changes:
- disable the deprecation warning. this wouldn't actually show
anything by default unless you run python with the warning enabled
(-Wd), but until there's a clear plan for the future of this package
it seems premature to declare deprecation.
- fix the lack of `package` entry in setup.py
- various typos in the README
- fix the libmagic test under python3.  this is actually a bug in the
libmagic python bindings but I'd rather not make changes there.

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 4:19 AM, Christoph Biedl
<debian.axhn@manchmal.in-ulm.de> wrote:
> From the popular series "Leaving fatal mistakes in spite of
> proof-reading three times":
>
> Christoph Biedl wrote...
>
>> Doing a first round of tests showed
>                                        no
>>                                         regressions so far.
>
> You may stop panicking now :)
>
>     Christoph



-- 
Adam Hupp | http://hupp.org/adam/

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

#10061 — Bug#877849: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for python-magic

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

Adam Hupp wrote...

> Whew, I was worried for a moment :)  I've pushed an update to the
> branch

Great to see.

> Changes:
> - disable the deprecation warning. this wouldn't actually show
> anything by default unless you run python with the warning enabled
> (-Wd), but until there's a clear plan for the future of this package
> it seems premature to declare deprecation.

Um, I cannot see that one. However, there is a version bump, but in the
libmagic-compat branch only while I'd expect that one in master. Care to
check?

> - fix the libmagic test under python3.  this is actually a bug in the
> libmagic python bindings but I'd rather not make changes there.

ACK

    Christoph

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web