[py3porters-devel] Packaging of suds-jurko

[Mathias Behrle]

* Paul Tagliamonte: " Re: [py3porters-devel] Packaging of suds-jurko" (Tue, 21
  Apr 2015 17:58:45 -0400):

> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:53:08PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote:
> > Hi together,
> 
> Heyya, Mathias!

Hi Paul,
 
> > My concerns so far are not for backward incompatibility, but for a rather
> > reliably maintained upstream. I was in regluar contact with jurko, who said
> > to suffer from shortages in ressources. So for now it can be seen, that the
> > project receives a lot of public attention (issues, pull requests)and is
> > widely used[0], but the last commit dates from last year[1] and development
> > seems to stagnate.
> 
> Do you see this as a worse issue than suds itself (suds upstream) also
> going unmaintained?

The situation with suds-jurko for sure is not worse, but the problem is
more generally to get more or keep unmaintained software in the archive.
 
> > So from my side I am still hesitating and will wait further with pushing
> > suds-jurko as a replacement for python-suds.
> 
> Is there a downside to shipping it? Are there regressions? I only see it
> as a step forward from the archive, not a step back, do you agree? If
> so, why not use it as a stop gap?

My thoughts:

- When providing a quite unmaintained suds(-jurko) we will have to maintain
  the evtl. necessary patches there. So it boils down a little bit, where the
  patches go: to python-suds or to evtl. rdepends.
- When not providing a python3-suds package, the pressure on rdepends is
  slightly higher to consider using another well maintained SOAP client
  providing python3 support. Soon we will be at the beginning of a new release
  cycle, so there will be quite some time for rdepends to adapt.

So my reservation with providing a python3-suds as a stop gap is, that this will
rather fix unsane conditions than moving forward.

> > If pysimplesoap [2][3] proves to
> > be a well maintained project providing all necessary features, it should be
> > the preferable target for a Python2/Python3 SOAP client.
> 
> Sure, for upstreams that are willing to accept a port to a new library,
> I guess I'm wondering what we'll do for upstreams that have roughly
> Python 3 compatable code, but with suds; I'd hate to overhaul their code
> in a debian/patches/ patch to change a library they use unless we need
> to

I surely won't get in the way of my Debian fellows, if I am told that it is
considered useful to have suds-jurko under the actual circumstances in the
archive. While trying to contact Jurko once more I will be glad to hear your
opinions. AFAIR the work already done[0] and dating from July last year
resulted in a functional package, so usually there shouldn't big drawbacks in
getting this done provided there weren't any API changes in the meantime (which
I don't expect).

Cheers,
Mathias

[0]
https://alioth.debian.org/plugins/scmgit/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=tryton/suds.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/py3-drop_in_suds_jurko-WIP



-- 

    Mathias Behrle
    PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/py3porters-devel/attachments/20150422/63ec375d/attachment.sig>