Re: [PATCH] gnu: Add pybitmessage, [PATCH] gnu: Add python2-pyqt-4, [PATCH] gnu: gnu: messaging: Use license: prefix.

[ng0]

Andreas Enge <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 04:47:52PM +0000, ng0 wrote:
>> Upstream is aware of this and told me they are working on a port towards
>> qt5 and also python3. However there is no deadline. It is their
>> choice. As I recently read there are people using Guix who are
>> interested in using PyBitmessage.
>> This package is usable, license fits, I find this block you create a bit
>> harsh. I can understand it, but does it mean that you are against adding
>> it at all because of qt4?
>
> I am not blocking, it is just a bit frustrating to go backwards! If there
> is no other solution and no easy replacement for the package you wish to add,
> we could revert my previous commit. I am just feeling uneasy about packages
> that are not maintained by upstream and do not receive security updates
> any more.
>
> Andreas
>

Okay, I just wanted to ask. It felt a bit frustrating at first to get
such a comment on something I worked on for more than just a few
minutes. Thanks for clearing this up.

There is no other solution than to contribute to upstream to work
towards qt5 port. There's not much difference between pyqt5 and pyqt4,
but I don't have the time to investigate and invest into this at the
moment. My bugreport was a 1on1 message exchange with one of the
developers of PyBitmessage, I'll open official bugreports now because
this is not effective (I had a 50% finished setup.py passed along to
this developer several months ago as a patch, nothing happened... github
reaction was much faster).
I know because a repository of it exists, that python2 -> python3 is
being worked on.
I want to drop qt4, but this application currently leaves me no other
choice than to rely on qt4 and pyqt4.
-- 
ng0
For non-prism friendly talk find me on http://www.psyced.org