On 14 Feb 2017 09:28, "Tomas Tomecek" <ttomecek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Quoting James Hogarth (2017-02-13 18:02:23)
> On 13 February 2017 at 16:40, James Hogarth <james.hogarth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 13 February 2017 at 15:36, Tomas Tomecek <ttomecek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> am planning to update package python-docker-py from 1.x series to 2.x series in
> >> rawhide. The update should happen rather soon, so we're sure it gets to F26 (and
> >> hence we can have docker-compose 1.11 in F26). The reason this is important is
> >> that 2.x is not backwards compatible with 1.x. Here is a list of breaking
> >> changes:
> >>
> >> https://docker-py.readthedocs.io/en/stable/change-log.html# breaking-changes
> >>
> >>
> >> Here is a list of affected packages:
> >>
> >> $ dnf repoquery --whatrequires \*docker-py
> >> atomic-0:1.15.2-2.fc26.x86_64
> >> docker-compose-0:1.9.0-3.fc26.noarch
> >> flr-0:0.0.1-1.fc26.noarch
> >> python-atomic-reactor-0:1.6.19-5.fc26.noarch
> >> python-dockerpty-0:0.4.1-4.fc26.noarch
> >> python2-docker-squash-0:1.0.5-3.fc26.noarch
> >> python3-atomic-reactor-0:1.6.19-5.fc26.noarch
> >> python3-docker-squash-0:1.0.5-3.fc26.noarch
> >> python3-dockerpty-0:0.4.1-4.fc26.noarch
> >> python3-sen-0:0.5.0-1.fc26.noarch
> >>
> >>
> >> Maintainers of these packages, shall I help you with porting to docker-py-2?
> >>
> >>
> >> (This is the third time I'm trying to send this e-mail, this time without CCs;
> >> sorry if spamming)
> >>
> >> Since I'm resending, I already managed to rebase the package and all the changes
> >> are in dist-git. Will submit a build once we are sure the update doesn't break
> >> anything.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Since this is a breaking change in the module and upstream have
> > formally renamed from python-docker-py to python-docker might I
> > suggest that it is more appropriate to issue a fresh package review
> > for python-docker (which can then in due course perhaps obsolete
> > python-docker-py or at least just retire it without obsoleting) would
> > be more appropriate?
> >
> > This will break the scripts of anyone using the docker python module
> > after all ...
> >
> > Related to this are you aware of any plans to rebase from 1.9.0 in RHEL extras?
>
> Further to this looks like the F26 mass rebuild picked up this change
> by accident ...
>
> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID= 854128
>
> At the very least you need a self-contained F26 FESCO change ticket for this ...
>
> The correct procedure, given upstream has renamed, is to epoch bump
> this back to 1.10 and then to do a package review for python-docker
> though ...
> ______________________________Oh!_________________
> devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Thanks for letting me know.
The rename is actually a really good point. What bothers me is that upstream git
repo is still named docker-py, same for documentation. PyPI package is named
docker, as you pointed out. They even check if the 1.x series is installed:
https://github.com/docker/docker-py/blob/master/setup. py#L12
So let's rename then. I will submit new review. But first let's fix rawhide.
Regarding RHEL extras: not sure; first I want to make it happen in Fedora, then
wait for everyone to get used to it (especially atomic command). The thing is
that plenty of tools and scripts in RHEL ecosystem use this library. I don't
want to break those. If this bothers you, feel free to open bugzilla and we can
discuss there.
Thank you, James.
Tomas
No problem and great stuff
Feel free to cc me when you submit the review and I'll be happy to pick it up.
I have scripts that use this in my workplace so useful to know when I might need to update them :)
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
