Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> writes: > I would like to see python3-lsprotocol backported to stable-backports. I use > it in my work on `debputy` and the lack of `python3-lsprotocol` in the current > stable reduces the functionality of `debputy` when used in stable-backports. > > To this end, I would like to coordinate: > > 1. Do you see any blockers for backporting this package other than > packaging? To my knowledge has a strong focus on backwards > compatibility in the specification, so I am not expecting a new > release will end up being problematic. But you might know more > than I do. :)
Nope. In fact the current package in unstable/testing installs and works just fine on bookworm (I have been using it there since the beginning). As far as the upstream side is concerned I have no special knowledge, I only packaged it since it's a reverse-dep of the pylsp ruff plugin which I'm an active user of. > 2. Do you have preferences for how the backport is maintained? As in, > do you want to do it? If not, should I use the python3-lsprocotol > git repo (I would need access to it in that case). Or would you > prefer not to have anything to do with it and the maintenance > happens elsewhere? It requires very little work (add a changelog entry and upload), so I can just as well do it myself and save the coordination overhead. I just updated the package in unstable, I'll wait for it to migrate and then upload a backport. Thanks a lot for your work with debputy, I'm using it in my Debian work and it's been great. -- Arto Jantunen
