On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 03:41:02PM -0500, Michel Lind wrote: > Hi all, > > With the recent EOL of the Django 3.2 LTS series[^1], and Django being a > key component of our mailing list infra for both Fedora and CentOS, I > would like to propose the following plan to maintain Django in both > Fedora and EPEL: > > - Fedora: `python-django` maintained as currently, not tracking any LTS > series > - **but** also fork off `python-django` each time it hits an LTS > series to make a new `python-djangoX.Y` (e.g. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274198) > - LTS packages are introduced in Fedora first, until they either reach > EOL or no longer build, at which point they are retired in Rawhide. > See below for the EOL case. > - EPEL: we will only branch LTS packages (as is the case now, with > `python-django3` - though under the new naming scheme it should have > been `python-django3.2`) > - Handling EOL > - not an issue for `python-django` - we just keep rebasing it To be clear, in fedora right? There wouldn't be a bare python-django in EPEL? > - for LTS releases in Fedora, retire in Rawhide if the series will > EOL before the EOL of the upcoming Fedora release > - for LTS releases in EPEL, once it is EOL (like `python-django3`) > we mark it as `Provides: deprecated()` and retire it if there is a > replacement that works with add-on packages, *and* there is a CVE > that is not fixed > - Package ACL: cc-ing the current maintainers of python-django here. > Please let me know if > - you want to be added to the LTS packages as well > - you want to be removed from python-django > - you're not currently involved but want to help out > - I'll also add infra-sig to the ACL for the LTS packages, as in > practice they might need access to fix any issue affecting Mailman > > The different Django stacks are in the process of being updated so they > can be swapped without affecting dependents, by providing and > conflicting with the virtual `python-django-impl`; not only will this > allow us to swap one Django LTS for another in EPEL when the older one > EOLs, but it also allows those with dependencies that are not qualified > for the latest Django to swap to the LTS in Fedora > > Let me know if this makes sense, or if you have ideas of how to handle > some of these better. I think it does make a lot of sense. ;) On the epel side, it would be good to make some noise/announce when a LTS one is marked deprecated and when it's retired, since 3rd parties might be using it for the external stuff even if everything in EPEL moves to the new one. Would a EPEL package moving to a new LTS release need exceptions/announcements also? I mean, ideally it doesn't matter, but it would be a large version jump, even if the dependent package didn't change otherwise. Also, there might be cases where the dependent package does have to change... ie, foo-1.0 works with django-3.2, but when 4.2 lands you have to upgrade to foo-2.0 to work with it? Anyhow, I think this is a pretty reasonable process, but we should make sure and communicate it very well, document it and make sure epel steering comittee is happy with it. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to epel-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
