-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/26/2013 08:34 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Tue, 2013-11-26 at 12:02 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: >> On 11/25/2013 06:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote: >>> On Mon, 2013-11-25 at 11:24 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is kind of why I keep coming back to: "Why do we have >>>> python-django at all?" I don't really see any reason why we >>>> shouldn't kill off the python-django package and just carry >>>> 'python-django15' and 'python-django16' packages with a >>>> conflict. >>>> >>>> The number of incompatibilities between releases is such that >>>> I don't think we really want to be forcing upgrades on other >>>> packages at all. We should just be carrying whichever two >>>> versions are supported by upstream at any given time. >>>> Upstream is very good about maintaining bugfixes and security >>>> fixes in both supported streams. >>> >>> +1 by changing version the current way, the only ting we can >>> guarantee is a lot of broken packages all the time. >>> >> I see your points here and thank you for the feedback! >> >> From my experience, it was just a pain to have python-django14 >> and python-django[1]. Introducing one or two other packages >> python-django15 and python-django16 will make it more difficult >> for users to update django. How should packages require Django? >> Just require python-django? Sadly, yum can not handle that >> properly[1]. >> >> When dropping python-django as provides/requires, we'd have the >> situation packages will require a specific version. That's >> rather unfortunate, because combination of packages requiring >> some other python-django-foo package might require a different >> django version. >> >> At least for OpenStack Horizon I can say, we're up to fix >> compatibility issues with Django-1.6 upstream. >> >> Matthias >> >> >> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=978647 > > Packages should require the latest version they work with. If some > package is really awesome and supports multiple versions I guess it > could support a generic python-django. > > It's ok if 2 packages become incompatible this way, they wouldn't > work anyway with the wrong version of django. I think Simo has the right idea here. We should drop the standard "python-django" package at this point and instead have python-django15 and python-django16. Each of those packages should add a virtual Provides: and Obsoletes: for python-django. Existing packages with a non-strict version will then default to upgrading to the absolute latest version (python-django16). If that's not acceptable to their project, they'll need to release a new update with 'Requires: python-django15' and things should go back to normal. In the future, if they update so they work with both currently-available versions, they can go back to 'Requires: python-django' and will then work with whichever version the user has on the system (such as for another project). Yes, it slightly increases the packager work, but it should give a better experience for the user... to a point. Since Django 1.5 and 1.6 cannot presently co-exist on the system, they'll need to have an explicit Conflicts:. This does mean that users will have an issue if they end up pulling Django 1.6 as part of an upgrade and then try to install a package that Requires: python-django15. We can't automatically remove python-django16, so the user will have to know to do this manually. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlKUqVMACgkQeiVVYja6o6MizwCcCCJfRhc7M7h/pTWwwtVXKZ3d 7EMAn2fA3ktfExNZZZwp1fX2RleWK7rJ =6Nfr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
