On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:53:08PM +0200, Mathias Behrle wrote: > Hi together,
Heyya, Mathias! > My concerns so far are not for backward incompatibility, but for a rather > reliably maintained upstream. I was in regluar contact with jurko, who said to > suffer from shortages in ressources. So for now it can be seen, that the > project receives a lot of public attention (issues, pull requests)and is > widely used[0], but the last commit dates from last year[1] and development > seems to stagnate. Do you see this as a worse issue than suds itself (suds upstream) also going unmaintained? > So from my side I am still hesitating and will wait further with pushing > suds-jurko as a replacement for python-suds. Is there a downside to shipping it? Are there regressions? I only see it as a step forward from the archive, not a step back, do you agree? If so, why not use it as a stop gap? > If pysimplesoap [2][3] proves to > be a well maintained project providing all necessary features, it should be > the > preferable target for a Python2/Python3 SOAP client. Sure, for upstreams that are willing to accept a port to a new library, I guess I'm wondering what we'll do for upstreams that have roughly Python 3 compatable code, but with suds; I'd hate to overhaul their code in a debian/patches/ patch to change a library they use unless we need to > Best, > Mathias Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
