Use pydot again instead of pydotplus

[petrrr]

According to the HISTORY the switch from pydot to pydotplus was done approx. 2 year ago. I assume this was done for a lack of activity and missing Python 3 support. Some time back the development of pydot was stale and it was not clear which of the many forks to use.

Now the situation with pydot seems to have recovered and developments seems to take place and converging at https://github.com/erocarrera/pydot. pydot now claims to support python 3. See also https://pypi.python.org/pypi/pydot/1.2.3

Wouldn't it make sense to switch back to pydot again?

[trungdong]

Many thanks @petrrr for checking this. I looked at pydot build and see that it is now tested against Python 3 (https://travis-ci.org/erocarrera/pydot).

You're right that we switched to pydotplus because it supports Python 3. Having said that, I'm not sure whether both libraries are drop-in equivalent or not.

Is there any compelling reason to go for pydot?

[petrrr]

@trungdong: I intend to packages prov in Macports, a package manager for the OSX.

The point here is that dealing with multiple fork of the same/equivalent packages gets quite tricky/cumbersome in such environments, because they are conflicting. If it is possible to avoid this upstream that would help a lot.

To my understanding pydotplus was an intermediate fork which has not seen activity since 2014. The principal contributer to pydotplus (@carlos-jenkins) now contributes to pydot.

[trungdong]

@petrrr,

Thank you for the. I did a quick test with the latest pydot version and it seems to work fine.

Will commit the changes soon.

[ghisvail]

+1 @petrrr, same rationales regarding the Debian packaging. A new release with the latest changes would be nice.