On Tuesday, April 9, 2019 2:03:55 PM CEST mcepl@cepl.eu wrote:
Hi Matej,
could you please fix your email address? its slightly annoying.. (I can't send mail to it).
Provides: python2-python-subunit = %{version} Provides: python3-python-subunit = %{version} All your packages should work just fine.
They don't. first of all obsoletes is missing, and 2nd the package is actually called python-* in older releases.
OK, the reasons for simplification were mainly esthetic, but really all your packages should find their dependency. Don't they?
they don't.
I quoted the setup.py name= setting in the previous mail, please have a look there.
OK, that I missed. However, do you have some compelling reason, why this uglification should happen?
because we have a clear naming policy and we should stay consistent to that one? why did you rename all the ipython packages and were quoting the policy and here you're deviating for the policy because "its ugly" ?
ipython was a *clear* exception. We had dozens of packages properly consistently named, and now everything has been messed up to follow the policy (and the existing maintainers were not even involved in the discussion). And now we're introducing this breakage for a single package and argue it should stay that way because its "de-uglifying" it?
complicated it would be to patch subunit to work with the new API?
It is near trivial, but that isn't the point.
Could I ask for that trivial patch, please? So we could stay with the latest packages and not hold anything back?
Just by not patching the package and shipping it as it is provided by upstream everything works. If you want to improve things, then improve it upstream and make a patch there, get it merged, and make upstream rleease a new version.
Adding a pile of downstream only patches to the package that are completely breaking the way the package works for the rest of the distribution is not a good way forward.
Thanks, Dirk