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?
Scott
