On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:57:47PM +0000, Julian Gilbey wrote: > (2) Please take a look at > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1073445#25 (though > I'm not proposing changing the package name in this NMU).
Looks reasonable, though I haven't looked in much detail ... > (3) I would suggest tweaking Colin's proposal: the other binary/source > packages currently (build-)depending on python3-multipart should all > be upgraded *first* to change their python3-multipart dependency to > read: > > python3-multipart (<< 0.1) | python3-python-multipart > > This way, when the python3-multipart package is renamed, these other > packages will continue to work without change (unless the newer > version of python3-multipart that I'm planning to NMU breaks them > anyway). That might be a good idea, but I wonder if the order should be flipped: python3-python-multipart | python3-multipart (<< 0.1) My instinct is that apt will behave slightly better that way, but even if I'm wrong about that, it seems better to put the eventually-preferred name first. > (4) With the maintainer's current non-responsiveness, it may make > sense to salvage these three interlinked packages (fastapi, > python-multipart, sqlmodel). That will take longer than an NMU, but > will help with the longer-term maintenance of these packages. (I > would propose transferring them to the Debian Python Team if they are > salvaged.) I'm not very familiar with the salvaging process, but I don't object. Judging from https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.en.html#package-salvaging it looks like that takes a minimum of about a month, giving plenty of time for the maintainer to react and stop the process? And would you like to drive that (since I suppose I might be seen as having a slight conflict of interest due to being an upstream committer to multipart)? -- Colin Watson (he/him) [cjwat...@debian.org]
