Hello Carl, > Has there been any progress on this?
As far as I know, unfortunately this issue is still stalled due to waiting on a decision (and action) about the naming conflicts. > Since python3-jellyfish from the DNA package has been in the archive for a > little while, it seems like it would be a bad idea to use that name and hence > the only real option is to differ from upstream here. Maybe > python*-jellyfish-strings (or -matching)? 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. The details are a bit scattered among the RFS, ITP, etc., but a short recap would be that, for this bug to move forward it would be needed to: 1) rename the existing python3-jellyfish Python bindings *module* name (in progress at [4]) 2) make a decision on which package is to be renamed (this one vs DNA) 3) proceed with the actually renaming of the package I'll be a bit short on time during next week, but I intend to update the package to the newest upstream version (released this week) early next month, and also do my best to try to give another push to getting this ITP forward - any suggestions, comments and help would be much appreciated. Best regards, [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=807432#80 [2] http://paste.debian.net/432489 [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819016#30 [4] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=819016 -- Diego M. Rodriguez 36B3 42A9 9F2F 2CFB F79B FF9B B6C4 B901 06BC E232
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
