Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
- Original Message - Am 02.03.2012 10:56, schrieb Bohuslav Kabrda: Ok, so after having this approved, here is the tracking page that I came up with. I'd like you all to go through it and say if it's ok/discuss things that may not be clear. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Django_rename Thanks! Great, thank you. What about retiring packages? Will this rename involve older branches or just f18 and newer? I'd suggest to do it for all (active) branches. Since we have the provides: django-... it won't break anything. Matthias Hi Matthias, I'm not sure about that. I think it's not necessary, but let the other guys speak and say what they think. In my opinion, F17 and F18 should be enough. -- Regards, Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda. ___ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2012 08:28 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18/01/12 14:01, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: It seems actually, that there are pretty straightforward guidelines for renaming packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages So if renaming, we will _have to_ re-review. Also, the guidelines are pretty clear with the Provides and Obsoletes, so it shouldn't really be a problem. Bohuslav. OK, if renaming is consence, we should implement it right after branching F17 in devel-tree. Probably one should write an example .spec, especially taking care on sane requires, provides. Maybe we should make a wiki page to coordinate this step (overview, which package is required to change, which is changed, etc. Bohuslav, would you start such a page? We could divide up reviews. I would volunteer to do some reviews. Matthias Hi guys, so it seems that we should get this started now, when we have plenty of time for Fedora. I was thinking about this a lot and here is what I came up with: 1) We should create a fpc ticket, that would summarize what we want to do, and more importantly, it would ask fpc to add a section about Django and its plugins to Python packaging guidelines. 2) Then, after approved by fpc, I will create a wiki page that will hold the list of Django plugins/extensions, that were/were not renamed. 3) Then, we should first review python-django, which is already in work [1], but I believe it might be a good idea to wait for the fpc approval, before we actually approve and push it. 4) Finally, we should do all the other packages. In case some of the packagers are not responsive, we should have a proven packager standing by (I know two personally, so that shouldn't be a problem). Sounds like a good plan. I'll be travelling from Wednesday to the end of the week, and I need to bring the python-django spec that's being reviewed in sync with our latest Django package (and make some changes already mentioned in the review ticket and in Bohuslav's email), but I'll have time to do that later this week. It'd be great to have this land (mea culpa: I'm the one who originally picked 'Django' as the package name). - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Here is the FPC ticket, feel free to join the discussion :) https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/146 -- Regards, Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda. Ok, so after having this approved, here is the tracking page that I came up with. I'd like you all to go through it and say if it's ok/discuss things that may not be clear. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Django_rename Thanks! -- Regards, Bohuslav Slavek Kabrda. ___ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
Am 02.03.2012 10:56, schrieb Bohuslav Kabrda: Ok, so after having this approved, here is the tracking page that I came up with. I'd like you all to go through it and say if it's ok/discuss things that may not be clear. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bkabrda/Django_rename Thanks! Great, thank you. What about retiring packages? Will this rename involve older branches or just f18 and newer? I'd suggest to do it for all (active) branches. Since we have the provides: django-... it won't break anything. Matthias ___ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/27/2012 08:28 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18/01/12 14:01, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: It seems actually, that there are pretty straightforward guidelines for renaming packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages So if renaming, we will _have to_ re-review. Also, the guidelines are pretty clear with the Provides and Obsoletes, so it shouldn't really be a problem. Bohuslav. OK, if renaming is consence, we should implement it right after branching F17 in devel-tree. Probably one should write an example .spec, especially taking care on sane requires, provides. Maybe we should make a wiki page to coordinate this step (overview, which package is required to change, which is changed, etc. Bohuslav, would you start such a page? We could divide up reviews. I would volunteer to do some reviews. Matthias Hi guys, so it seems that we should get this started now, when we have plenty of time for Fedora. I was thinking about this a lot and here is what I came up with: 1) We should create a fpc ticket, that would summarize what we want to do, and more importantly, it would ask fpc to add a section about Django and its plugins to Python packaging guidelines. 2) Then, after approved by fpc, I will create a wiki page that will hold the list of Django plugins/extensions, that were/were not renamed. 3) Then, we should first review python-django, which is already in work [1], but I believe it might be a good idea to wait for the fpc approval, before we actually approve and push it. 4) Finally, we should do all the other packages. In case some of the packagers are not responsive, we should have a proven packager standing by (I know two personally, so that shouldn't be a problem). Sounds like a good plan. I'll be travelling from Wednesday to the end of the week, and I need to bring the python-django spec that's being reviewed in sync with our latest Django package (and make some changes already mentioned in the review ticket and in Bohuslav's email), but I'll have time to do that later this week. It'd be great to have this land (mea culpa: I'm the one who originally picked 'Django' as the package name). - -- Michel Alexandre Salim Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/ Email: sali...@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hir...@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hir...@irc.freenode.net () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPS1fiAAoJEEr1VKujapN6Fp4H/j2a76cI+qq6EzkxQRj1nHkw YCwwcLFpobAOI1cNgODZjvBwtKP9AVeRwqtonwP9KqSM3DsYY2uFzaO+kpY+iW69 hEec8Sq01xmomFrBR8RDWMohYfzii6yFjl/UCa1tM3AYDOGWXHdzc6omsnqFL7kR aex8kxnMkQuuBrwbwX7yZaLwGSP5XJPov4tH+lTp/qtr0hshs1gBNVSK0Tdx+J93 85Q3GygPhe1DsfEfW7mfe0hugzTCSd0Oc6IPYStouM5ofAuRXxTa5qWEVBeH7mpW BBfDXo2OAgDa8y4jdoGYmvjpeoDSCdj4KdxJzYavZykQndW83AhxnJb/uIVNSlw= =pD9X -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
- Original Message - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 18/01/12 14:01, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: It seems actually, that there are pretty straightforward guidelines for renaming packages: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages So if renaming, we will _have to_ re-review. Also, the guidelines are pretty clear with the Provides and Obsoletes, so it shouldn't really be a problem. Bohuslav. OK, if renaming is consence, we should implement it right after branching F17 in devel-tree. Probably one should write an example .spec, especially taking care on sane requires, provides. Maybe we should make a wiki page to coordinate this step (overview, which package is required to change, which is changed, etc. Bohuslav, would you start such a page? We could divide up reviews. I would volunteer to do some reviews. Matthias So you want to actually get this into F17? I'm not sure that this is a good idea, the time is short and only two of us have stated their opinions, so let's wait for more people and then make the decision. If we really agree on this, then I'll be happy to find a way to get this going (wiki page, etc.). Bohuslav. - -- Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de mru...@fedoraproject.org -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPFsV3AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWdbMH/Ax4ESj6qnAnC60N+4L8I1Xk CUKC9xTPU/S3Pmw2fgqXTs2N89W0FosSfDtX3xy8iBJ8F8QHWpNXlWl/1Lb98Kgo qyO4IR3AANTDZAPFc7J3hNqwUnt8NiiyVrolfM4gCKRSqp/bmEEd0xKaO+pynrnq bkwdcVEtIgE57QY9MzHcUyA06GobKyF9ICX/TLHqDwyfXCtx+qQYUmiW36xAOBTb Qjm09T1x95XvMMCnTpYoLAmUcx/3AfzOsrl2vOzJEMFhsn97dlyVtFC5M1ZwO+7v bnzWfQQxWmPffetjp/DN9OLNl+HbmCrltDwKsLdubDl7S6zJFbpiOu7QbtZl1CQ= =ejbI -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
