I've pushed an update here: https://github.com/ahupp/python-magic/tree/libmagic-compat
It includes a copy of libmagic's bindings, wrapped in deprecation warnings. So apps should work regardless of which they depend on. Could you take a look and see if this works for your case? On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Mathias Behrle <mathi...@m9s.biz> wrote: > * Mathias Behrle: " Re: [tryton-debian] Namespace conflict for > python-magic" (Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:01:16 +0200): > > Hi Adam, > > are there any news on the subject? > > The release of Tryton, that will require python-magic is scheduled for next > week. It would be a great service to our users and simplify things a lot, if > we > had a common python-magic in place. Please let us know, if we can help with > the > planned merge. > > Thanks, > Mathias > > >> * Adam Hupp: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 3 Oct 2017 >> 11:06:38 -0700): >> >> That's good news, Adam, thanks for it! Looking forward to get your diff. >> >> Best regards, >> Mathias >> >> >> > Sorry about the slow response. This has been a pain for a while. I >> > have a provisional diff to merge the two packages. Will give it some >> > testing and pass a branch to you folks to take a look. Ideally the >> > upstream file package would take it over. >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Mathias Behrle <mbeh...@debian.org> wrote: >> > > * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Tue, 5 Sep >> > > 2017 18:24:25 +0200): >> > > >> > >> Mathias Behrle wrote... >> > >> >> > >> > * Christoph Biedl: " Re: Namespace conflict for python-magic" (Mon, 4 >> > >> > Sep 2017 19:38:56 +0200): >> > >> >> > >> > > The cleanest solution indeed was to bring both upstreams together >> > >> > > and >> > >> > > ask them to reconcile the APIs and eventually make one of the both >> > >> > > implementations obsolete. As things happen such an attempt was >> > >> > > started two years ago but appearently never came to a result.[1] >> > >> > >> > >> > Agreed, that this would be the cleanest solution, but as you say there >> > >> > is little probability, that the two upstreams will work together to >> > >> > merge their implementations. >> > >> >> > >> Still this should be tried first. Also, I'm not that pessimistic, see >> > >> below. So let's bring the parties involved into the loop: >> > > >> > > [...] >> > > >> > > Thanks for your additional information and initiative to re-launch the >> > > merge of the two packages. This reads much better and more optimistic >> > > than >> > > what I could find until now! Crossing fingers now in the hope for the >> > > best >> > > outcome for everybody. >> > > >> > > Cheers, >> > > Mathias >> > > >> > > -- >> > > >> > > Mathias Behrle >> > > PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 >> > > AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > > -- > > Mathias Behrle > PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0xD6D09BE48405BBF6 > AC29 7E5C 46B9 D0B6 1C71 7681 D6D0 9BE4 8405 BBF6 -- Adam Hupp | http://hupp.org/adam/
