Need review advice

[Alec Leamas]

This is about BZ 817268, python-faces. The faces library is bundled in 
openerp-server, and the request is about unbundling this library.

Faces is basically two python packages and a binary application. The 
upstream is dead. The library cannot be used or even installed  in 
current upstream state, mostly because of references to old versions of 
matplotlib. However, OpenERP (OE) has bundled, patched and used the library.

So I have submitted a request package python-faces based on the OE 
patch. This makes the package work for OE's needs, but has drawbacks:
- The API is changed (__init__.py is patched), basically by limiting it 
to what works.
- The binary application is no longer  compatible with the patched lib, 
so it must be removed..

My reviewer's position is that:
- The sources should be included in OE instead of being packaged separately.
- The patch is unacceptable because it changes the API.
- Removing the binary application is unacceptable.

My position is that
  - Bundling is not an option,
-  It's better to have something with at least some functionality which 
is maintained by OE, than no package at all.
- The patch basically limits the API to what actually works. This is not 
unreasonable.
- There are no general rules against changing API or removing parts 
which don't work in this situation - that is not to say it should be 
done lightly.

I have looked inte patching the package, but it's beyond what I can do 
in terms om time and competence. The hard issues are references to old 
matpotlib APIs, together with the non-existing community. There has been 
attempts to update faces to recent standards. Actually, the last commits 
in the faces repo (2010)  are OE contributions i. e., they make a 
maintenance work. However, their interest  is in the library, not in the 
application.

Nevertheless, I and my reviewer needs to  find a common understanding on 
this issues. Could someone please have a look at this bug, and give some 
input?

The link: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817268