> Date: 02/21/2014 13:11
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, John.Florian@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> > I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants to
> > maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords more
> > flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep
> > several python-djangoXYs in the distro, but it makes for a less rigid
> > coupling between the OS and what framework version you need to use.
> The issue with this approach is, there is no upgrade, i.e. if your
> fantasticApp-1.0 uses python-django15 and fantasticApp-1.1 requires
> python-django16, you'd still have the older Django installed, which
> will produce a conflict. Thus the upgrade will fail.
Oh, yes I see that now. I was wishing for a python2/python3 like environement where both could coexist, but clearly would break all my imports. I keep seeing more and more reason to adopt the virtualenv approach, but I'd rather stick with the Fedora packaging guidelines to avoid bundling, even for private projects. It just seems so much more sensible, yet it does lead the "jump when we say jump" syndrome. Still, I'd rather deal with the upgrade conflict you mention than to be pinned to an older Fedora release. It's always a fragile balancing act choosing between what needs to be new and what cannot yet be new.
--
John Florian
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
