[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Django-1.5 build

Hash: SHA1

On 02/28/2013 02:16 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu 28 Feb 2013 06:58:36 AM EST, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> Dear list,
>> Django 1.5 was released about two days ago. I'd like to push a
>> build to rawhide, but I assume, that will break many dependent
>> packages.
>> The plan is, to delay the push, until other packages are fixed,
>> or to push in about 14 days.
>> I have a scratch-build build ready, one might to try, it should
>> install cleanly e.g. on Fedora 18.
>> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3880/5063880/python-django-1.5-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
> How many Django-based packages are we talking about? Should we be 
> considering putting things together in a side tag before landing
> in Rawhide?

Well, looking at my list of ~40 python-django packages, I know by
coincidence just a single package to be compatible with Django-1.5

> Looking at the release notes[1], there is a sizeable number of 
> backwards-incompatible changes present in this new version. I
> think it's going to bite us if we force it straight into Rawhide at
> this point. Given the way that Django tends to operate 
> (backwards-incompatible releases about every six months with only
> the current and previous release supported for bugfixes and
> security), I'm wondering if we shouldn't just drop the
> 'python-django' package entirely and go with 'python-django14',
> 'python-django15', etc. from here until eternity, retiring
> unsupported versions only between upstream releases. This is a
> policy that would probably also work acceptably for EPEL (CCed).
That seems to be a good proposal for me. Review request is here[1],
based on the current python-django package. Shouldn't be an issue.
For EPEL, we have the Django14 package. This shouldn't change there,
but we can think about introducing provides: python-django14 there.

Also, IMHO the number of incompatible changes became less and less
disruptive in the past, and I see this as maturing of the project.
> Also, Django 1.5's release notes[2] indicate that it now has
> support for Python 3.2 and later. I'd strongly recommend that we
> should be dual-building python3-django15 as well here.
Yes, I was thinking about a python3-django feature for F20, as it's
absolutely too late for this as a feature for F19, right?

As there is at least /usr/bin/django-admin provided by the package, we
should decide, if that should be coming from the python3 package, if
the python3 version should carry a python3 (or just a 3) in it's name,
or what to do else.


[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=916676
- -- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge matthias-runge de>
               <mrunge fedoraproject org>
Version: GnuPG v1.4.13 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]