Hello Carl and Andreas, On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 07:27:58AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > While renaming _this_ package was the proposed solution during most of > > the ITP discussions, please be aware that the most recent (~2 months) > > recommendation from #debian-python [1][2] would be to rename _the Python > > DNA package_ instead. I'm still trying to find out Andrea's point of > > view on this recommendation [3], though. > > My point is that I agree. If somebody would commit patches for DNA > Jellyfish this could speed up the action. > > Sorry for not setting the proper priority on this issue
Thanks for stating your point of view, Andreas, and no worries in regards to the priority - I fully understand time is a scarce resource! I'll try to retake the work on the existing DNA Jellyfish patches at #819016 (for renaming the module) and append the relevant patches for renaming the binary package in the next days. On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 13:02:47 +1000, Carl Suster wrote: > The name src:jellyfish is surely off-limits anyway so this package will need a > different source package name in any case. Since the only consideration is the > binary package name which is fairy painless to rename later, then my > suggestion > would be: > ... Thanks for the reasonable suggestion! However, taking into account Andreas' answer, would it be reasonable to wait a sensible amount of time and see if we manage to fully rename DNA's python-jellyfish before going through with your suggestion, basically for avoiding the renaming "dance" for this package and focusing my efforts in the hopefully final solution? I'm not familiar enough with the full process, though, and cannot estimate how long it would take nor if that would be sensible in regards to the beets' package needs, so I'd basically trust your criteria if you feel the DNA renaming seems to far in the future. Best regards, -- Diego M. Rodriguez 36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
