-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 02/21/2014 01:58 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
> On 02/21/2014 01:14 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:36:24AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> +1 I still have an application that is slowly moving to 1.5
>>> but not there yet and it is painful to have to keep an older
>>> Fedora Version running just because of that.
>> I hear you! My current plan would be, to provide at least a
>> python-django-1.5 version.
> My suggestion would actually be that Fedora releases should ship
> ONLY with the latest supported upstream version and should be
> allowed to pick up the next one during its supported lifecycle.
This may not be possible, as it depends how long after upstream
release fedora is cut. In django case there is a long tail of
applications that needs porting so if you force 'lastest' you would
end up breaking a number of packages that do not support latest
> So for F21, we'd ship with only Django 1.6 support and would pick
> up 1.7 when it arrives. The problem with shipping F21 with 1.5
> and 1.6 support is that when 1.7 lands (and upstream drops all
> support for 1.5 at that time), we're stuck with only two
> 1) Attempt to assume the maintenance burden on the abandoned
> branch. 2) Retire it from Fedora and strand anyone who has been
> using it.
> Neither of these are good choices.
Honestly I do not think we have good choices. Upstream simply moves
too fast and causes all these issues to start with. We can only try
to do damage control.
> Upstream Django has a nine-month release cycle, meaning that
> each version is only supported for 18 months. This is perfectly
> acceptable for Fedora, as long as we don't ship with a version
> that's already into its 17th month...
It would be perfectly acceptable if the whole ecosystem moved at
that speed, but that is not the case, which is why I find django's
> Now, EPEL on the other hand gets even more troubling, since it
> has a much longer lifecycle...
> One other approach we might consider (though this is not
> currently an FPC-approved solution) would be to package Django as
> a software collection and all Django apps would depend on the
> appropriate collection. Since the 1.5 and 1.6 collections could
> coexist on the system, when an app updates to support the new
> one, it needs only change its Requires: to use the newer Django
> collection and it should Just Work(TM).
I think django should be moved completely out of the base distro
and be only a collection, keeping it in the distro is painful and
never satisfies everyone.
> Now, that's forbidden by policy at this point, but maybe we could
> at least experiment with this in a COPR repository for the time
> being. It would be nice to be able to come to the FPC with a
> working setup and ask them to bless it for us, rather than
> presenting them a problem statement and hoping that they can find
> a consensus.
Sounds like a decent plan :)
I'm having a parallel conversation about this with Toshio on
#fedora-devel right now. He believes it may be possible to get Django
to be parallel-installable on the base system without SCLs and is
running some tests. If he can make this work, that would make our
lives a lot easier. More to come, stay tuned...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----