Date: 02/21/2014 13:11
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, John.Florian(a)dart.biz wrote:
> I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like me who wants
> maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords
> flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging work to keep
> several python-djangoXYs in the distro, but it makes for a less
> 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.