On Sat, 22 Aug 2015, Mathias Behrle wrote:
* Scott Talbert: " Re: [tryton-debian] python-profitbricks-client: Please use a
maintained soap library instead of deprecated python-suds." (Fri, 21 Aug 2015
20:10:24 -0400 (EDT)):
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Mathias Behrle wrote:
I would much prefer to use suds-jurko as drop-in replacement for our
current suds, because
* suds-jurko is a fork that does not break the API
There may be some probability for this, but Jurko himself didn't give the
guarantee, that the changes already done didn't affect the API. Do you
want to provide this guarantee?
* the original suds upstream is dead
* the original suds could reclaim the namespace if upstream was becoming
active again
* rdepends don't have to change anything
rdepends should use the new upstream explicitly (see above) instead of
perhaps suddenly failing because of a more or less inadvertised drop-in.
IMO it makes no sense to rename the Debian binary package to
python-suds-jurko when you still run "import suds" instead of "import
suds_jurko".
It is not renaming a package, but indeed a new package. Just like the
project on Pypi is different from the still existing suds.
After looking again to the current state of suds-jurko (which is no more
fully API compatible), the result of the conversation at DebConf today
between Benjamin and me is:
Are you confirming that suds-jurko is definitely not API compatible with
suds, or are you just stating that there is uncertainty whether it is API
compatible?
Indeed I recently stumbled about an incompatibility. This one refers to a
logging method and is not a big deal, but so I can confirm.
Just out of curiosity, what was the incompatibility?
Scott
