I am the reviewer. My opinion is, if Faces-pm is dead and the modules from Faces-pm have been adopted and maintained by OpenERP, we can let OpenERP go. Importing an upstream-dead and dedicatedly patched package sounds strange.
-robin On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is about BZ 817268, python-faces. The faces library is bundled in > openerp-server, and the request is about unbundling this library. > > Faces is basically two python packages and a binary application. The > upstream is dead. The library cannot be used or even installed in current > upstream state, mostly because of references to old versions of matplotlib. > However, OpenERP (OE) has bundled, patched and used the library. > > So I have submitted a request package python-faces based on the OE patch. > This makes the package work for OE's needs, but has drawbacks: > - The API is changed (__init__.py is patched), basically by limiting it to > what works. > - The binary application is no longer compatible with the patched lib, so > it must be removed.. > > My reviewer's position is that: > - The sources should be included in OE instead of being packaged > separately. > - The patch is unacceptable because it changes the API. > - Removing the binary application is unacceptable. > > My position is that > - Bundling is not an option, > - It's better to have something with at least some functionality which is > maintained by OE, than no package at all. > - The patch basically limits the API to what actually works. This is not > unreasonable. > - There are no general rules against changing API or removing parts which > don't work in this situation - that is not to say it should be done lightly. > > I have looked inte patching the package, but it's beyond what I can do in > terms om time and competence. The hard issues are references to old > matpotlib APIs, together with the non-existing community. There has been > attempts to update faces to recent standards. Actually, the last commits in > the faces repo (2010) are OE contributions i. e., they make a maintenance > work. However, their interest is in the library, not in the application. > > Nevertheless, I and my reviewer needs to find a common understanding on > this issues. Could someone please have a look at this bug, and give some > input? > > The link: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/**show_bug.cgi?id=817268<https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817268> > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.**org/mailman/listinfo/devel<https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
