Sébastien Delafond wrote: > On Dec/03, Bob Proulx wrote: > > By my count there are 23 "<<" dependencies in use with mitmproxy! > > Wow! That is a lot of very fragile and breakage prone packages. It > > is doomed to have repeated breakages in Sid and Testing as those > > modules get uploaded. It isn't a good way to do things. Basically > > there are 23 timebomb snags in this package that can go off at any > > time due to any of those being upgraded. That is bad. > > > > Why so many timebombs in this package? > > Because that's how setup.py is written upstream ? If you have time to > contribute patches fixing some of those (by testing they are > unnecessary, for instance), please do so, and I'll happily include them > right away.
I have not worked with python packaging and therefore am at this time inexperienced in how setup.py files are written or should be written. Therefore I don't have a good idea of what to do here. I only know that it is an impossible system. I feel certain this can't be necessary. I know it is not a healthy and happy state. Just today there are two more python packages that have been uploaded breaking the << dependencies of mitmproxy again. This is inevitable. Do you wish us to simply keep filing individual bug reports each time this happens? Thank you for working on the problem regardless. Bob
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
