* Scott Talbert: " Re: [tryton-debian] python-profitbricks-client: Please use a maintained soap library instead of deprecated python-suds." (Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:10:24 -0400 (EDT)):
> On Fri, 21 Aug 2015, Mathias Behrle wrote:
>
> >>> I would much prefer to use suds-jurko as drop-in replacement for our
> >>> current suds, because
> >>>
> >>> * suds-jurko is a fork that does not break the API
> >>
> >> There may be some probability for this, but Jurko himself didn't give the
> >> guarantee, that the changes already done didn't affect the API. Do you
> >> want to provide this guarantee?
> >>
> >>> * the original suds upstream is dead
> >>> * the original suds could reclaim the namespace if upstream was becoming
> >>> active again
> >>> * rdepends don't have to change anything
> >>
> >> rdepends should use the new upstream explicitly (see above) instead of
> >> perhaps suddenly failing because of a more or less inadvertised drop-in.
> >>
> >>> IMO it makes no sense to rename the Debian binary package to
> >>> python-suds-jurko when you still run "import suds" instead of "import
> >>> suds_jurko".
> >>
> >> It is not renaming a package, but indeed a new package. Just like the
> >> project on Pypi is different from the still existing suds.
> >
> > After looking again to the current state of suds-jurko (which is no more
> > fully API compatible), the result of the conversation at DebConf today
> > between Benjamin and me is:
>
> Are you confirming that suds-jurko is definitely not API compatible with
> suds, or are you just stating that there is uncertainty whether it is API
> compatible?
Indeed I recently stumbled about an incompatibility. This one refers to a
logging method and is not a big deal, but so I can confirm.
--
Mathias Behrle
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
pgpQlAKd_7cSa.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
