On Monday, January 04, 2016 07:58:26 PM Scott Kitterman wrote: > On January 4, 2016 2:18:22 PM EST, "W. Martin Borgert" <deba...@debian.org> wrote: > >Hi, > > > >TLDR: Both are the same, providing the "socks" module. We should > >remove one of them. Maybe renaming the other to python-socks. > > > >Longer story: Recently, I upgraded the outdated python-socksipy > >package. This involved following a new upstream. Later I was > >informed, that the new upstream was already packaged under the > >name python-pysocks. > > > >Questions: > > - shall we remove one of the package? > > > > (proposal: yes) > > Yes. Please file the RM bug.
This is done (#810306). > > - which of the two packages should be removed from Debian? > > > > (proposal: remove pysocks, just because socksipy is older) > > Reasonable. Also both maintained by DPMT, so we can just pick. > > > - shall the other package provide dummy transitional packages? > > > > (proposal: yes) > > Actually, based on Python Policy both have wrong binary names. The binaries > should be python/python3-socks since they provide the socks module. No > need to rename the source. I think transitional packages are only needed > if there are rdepends that need updating and the can't be done now. > > - shall we rename the binary package to python-socks? > > > > (proposal: yes) > > Definitely. See above. So the above changes have been completed. I noticed that several packages had Recommends/Depends on one of the old package names, so I filed bugs. Bug#810309: torchat Bug#810308: python-sleekxmpp Bug#810307: offlineimap Scott K
