On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> On 21 December 2015 at 15:19, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 01:29:10PM -0500, Ben Rosser wrote:
> >>
> >> What's the right thing to do here? Replace pdfminer? Ship
> python3-pdfminer-six,
> >> have it provide python3-pdf
On 21 December 2015 at 15:19, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 01:29:10PM -0500, Ben Rosser wrote:
>>
>> What's the right thing to do here? Replace pdfminer? Ship
>> python3-pdfminer-six,
>> have it provide python3-pdfminer, and keep using the original package for
>> Python 2? Do
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 01:29:10PM -0500, Ben Rosser wrote:
>
> What's the right thing to do here? Replace pdfminer? Ship
> python3-pdfminer-six,
> have it provide python3-pdfminer, and keep using the original package for
> Python 2? Do nothing, and wait and see what happens upstream?
>
It's a t
First, I would suggest checking to see if anything even uses
python-pdfminer. I use DNF's repoquery to identify things that use it.
Here's an example command you can use to identify if something depends
on it:
* sudo dnf repoquery --queryformat "%{sourcerpm}: %{reponame}"
--whatrequires "python-pdf
Hello all,
I was hoping for some Python packaging advice, as it relates to "porting"
to Python 3-- I assume this is the right place to ask?
I currently maintain python-pdfminer. (https://github.com/euske/pdfminer),
sadly only for Python 2. Recently I investigated what the status of Python
3 suppo
