[ 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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
