On Saturday 09 March 2013 12:13:08 Pino Toscano wrote: > Hi, > > Alle sabato 16 febbraio 2013, Sven Brauch ha scritto: > > A while ago, I asked for a review of kdev-python, in order for it to > > be moved from playground to extragear. There was some (legitimate) > > objection about the fork of the python parser code the plugin > > contains, which is why the move has not taken place yet, and > > kdev-python is still residing in kdereview. > > > > I'm actively working on solving the issue -- chances that a patch can > > be applied upstream which enables me to drop the fork are good. [1] > > (This would however only apply to future releases of the python 3 > > version of the plugin, since the patch introduces binary-incompatible > > changes upstream which cannot be backported to python 2.) > > > > Thus, I would suggest to move kdev-python to extragear, even if the > > issue is not solved yet. > > If you disagree, let me know, in that case I must move kdev-python > > back to playground and propose it for review again once the fork has > > been removed from the master branch. I would however prefer not to do > > this. > > Considering the libpython fork in kdevpython is: > a) outdated (it is forked from python 2.7.1, current 2.7 is 2.7.3); > considering 2.7.1 has been released on 27/10/2010 and 2.7.3 on > 9/4/2012, this means it is one years and half behind fixes and > improvements of any kind > b) modified (so it is not totally pristine sources which can be updated > from upstream sources, if needed) > > this situation still makes me put -1 on this, sorry. > > I can understand it can seem frustrating having this kind of situation, > but as both KDE developer and distro (Debian) developer I cannot find > acceptable letting yet another case of embbeded code copy [1] in a new > "extragear" software, yet more so when the software copied is something > critical as python. As said in previous emails, this would put a non- > trivial burden over packagers (and potentially also over self-compiling > users).
Pino, could you please respond to Sven's last email? Please confirm, that your reasonings above are unchanged even though we are speaking about a fork of the *parser* not of the full python library (i.e. no code is executed!). If you are really still against merging a parser fork, then what do you propose to do? Esp. considering that Sven already tried to contact the Python developers multiple of times? Cheers -- Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de http://milianw.de
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.