On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda <bkabrda@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Now, I'm more attracted to rename the python-django package (yeay,
>> another Django-rename) to python-django14 and to submit a new package
>> python-django15 for review. When 1.6 comes out, python-django14 will
>> get deprecated and python-django16 will be submitted for review.
>> But still, currently, we're carrying provides like this:
>> Provides: django = %{version}-%{release}
>> Provides: Django = %{version}-%{release}
>> and also provide python-django. The question remains, what to do
>> here,
>> ie. which package should carry those provides. (probably the then
>> renamed python-django14 package, to make sure, not to break anything.
>>
>
> I have to disagree with you here. Ideally, we should just have one package, python-django, that would be the latest upstream. If that is undoable, let's also provide older packages as python-django14 etc. But we should still keep the newest Django (whichever version that is) in Fedora named python-django.
Yes. That's also what
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name
describes.
(In the recent years, the number of upstreams and packagers that can't
or won't support a smooth upgrade path and want to have several
versions of the same package installed has noticeably increased, and
we may need to react to this by designing a different parallel
installation setup and packaging guidelines - but let's not do it by
ignoring the current guidelines one package at a time.)
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
