Django packages - proposed name changes
Hi Pythonists!
in RHBZ #736776, Yury V. Zaytsev proposed renaming all Django packages
(including Django itself) to python-django-*. This change is suggested because
of current inconsistent state: Django and Django-south packages start with
capital letters, other Django extension libraries start with lowercase letters
- django-*. Also, since Django is a Python framework (not a standalone app),
all of the modules should have 'python-' prepended. Personally, I agree with
Yury and I think we should make this change. Here are the steps that I propose:
- discuss it on this list
- ask FPC what they think
- create a special section in Python packaging guidelines for packaging Django
extensions/libraries, if we agree that we should do this change
- perhaps postponing this change to F18 might be a good idea
Note, that this change should not affect applications written in Django, only
Django itself and its extensions/libraries. I would also consider using some
kind of virtual provides, so that if someone types "yum install django", it
will work - maybe each Django extension/library could have a virtual provide
like "Provides: django(foo) = %{version}".
So, what do you think?
Regards,
Bohuslav.
___
python-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 18/01/12 10:38, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> Hi Pythonists! in RHBZ #736776, Yury V. Zaytsev proposed renaming
> all Django packages (including Django itself) to python-django-*.
> This change is suggested because of current inconsistent state:
> Django and Django-south packages start with capital letters, other
> Django extension libraries start with lowercase letters - django-*.
> Also, since Django is a Python framework (not a standalone app),
> all of the modules should have 'python-' prepended. Personally, I
> agree with Yury and I think we should make this change. Here are
> the steps that I propose: - discuss it on this list - ask FPC what
> they think - create a special section in Python packaging
> guidelines for packaging Django extensions/libraries, if we agree
> that we should do this change - perhaps postponing this change to
> F18 might be a good idea
>
> Note, that this change should not affect applications written in
> Django, only Django itself and its extensions/libraries. I would
> also consider using some kind of virtual provides, so that if
> someone types "yum install django", it will work - maybe each
> Django extension/library could have a virtual provide like
> "Provides: django(foo) = %{version}".
>
> So, what do you think?
>
> Regards, Bohuslav. ___
> python-devel mailing list [email protected]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Hi,
renaming requires a re-review of packages.
I think, this step should become synchronized with other packages, such
as squirrelmail -> php-squirrelmail (and other php packages, such as
renaming cups-php to php-cups. Naming should be implemented
constistently throughout the distribution. Could we use this renaming
to implement any other renaming of packages without requiring re-reviews?
Maybe the described solution via virtual provides could solve the
actual problem. Newer django-packages should be packaged as
python-django-foobar
The latter would just need a provenpackager and some time to adjust
requires and provides of packages.
Disadvantage would be ballooning of the requirement solver tree in a
package manager.
Thoughts?
- --
Matthias Runge
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPFql7AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWylgIAIvWjibDXtmGnbQZ1+5vLo/M
genSkRCDr15geLcxrMKYZ7H7V07Q42vt8LGAj9AddFRLGROlKNfqrvsU9uGgrIkV
uZb9sd97ZcyON5PQKwYnSzcLTXM+Un1/ZOejCHiOuqM8BrK5llZXU0sYhzckX4++
EehFczZ8TTRW8ExRoZKGdvP2ontmRiJWjz8vy4igzMhQjzdgSNCsCX6h3iaeAJ15
fcOnBzj76smf+9QJSQaveRaDCaMfme7YtKnxFB7ds9IyrGMmLWtXB6VFc6VT1mft
MqSP3FVdEXC+8KZpfA8UPB8JJO8NTpVoSMNLIFdLrLserQdvkLxD7NxEQ/TUOT0=
=h5IF
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
python-devel mailing list
[email protected]
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 10:38, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > Hi Pythonists! in RHBZ #736776, Yury V. Zaytsev proposed renaming
> > all Django packages (including Django itself) to python-django-*.
> > This change is suggested because of current inconsistent state:
> > Django and Django-south packages start with capital letters, other
> > Django extension libraries start with lowercase letters - django-*.
> > Also, since Django is a Python framework (not a standalone app),
> > all of the modules should have 'python-' prepended. Personally, I
> > agree with Yury and I think we should make this change. Here are
> > the steps that I propose: - discuss it on this list - ask FPC what
> > they think - create a special section in Python packaging
> > guidelines for packaging Django extensions/libraries, if we agree
> > that we should do this change - perhaps postponing this change to
> > F18 might be a good idea
> >
> > Note, that this change should not affect applications written in
> > Django, only Django itself and its extensions/libraries. I would
> > also consider using some kind of virtual provides, so that if
> > someone types "yum install django", it will work - maybe each
> > Django extension/library could have a virtual provide like
> > "Provides: django(foo) = %{version}".
> >
> > So, what do you think?
> >
> > Regards, Bohuslav. ___
> > python-devel mailing list [email protected]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
> Hi,
>
> renaming requires a re-review of packages.
Yep, I know, but I think we shouldn't let this hold us back. The packages have
already passed once, so I think it wouldn't be much of a pain.
>
> I think, this step should become synchronized with other packages,
> such
> as squirrelmail -> php-squirrelmail (and other php packages, such as
> renaming cups-php to php-cups. Naming should be implemented
> constistently throughout the distribution. Could we use this renaming
> to implement any other renaming of packages without requiring
> re-reviews?
>
I think that we should solve Python and leave PHP to PHP guys. PHP has its own
guidelines, and if they are not creating and approving packages that conform
with the guidelines, it's their fault (but I agree that they should do
something like that, too). I'm not sure if the renaming can be achieved in any
other way than re-reviewing, but I think that the number of Django packages is
not that high, so let's stick with re-reviewing.
> Maybe the described solution via virtual provides could solve the
> actual problem. Newer django-packages should be packaged as
> python-django-foobar
>
I see your point, but what I meant was that the packages should be named
properly (python-django-*) and have a virtual provide django-*. I think it's
not so big transition that we wouldn't be able to get it to F18 (but I would
recommend against getting it to F17, as time is short).
> The latter would just need a provenpackager and some time to adjust
> requires and provides of packages.
>
> Disadvantage would be ballooning of the requirement solver tree in a
> package manager.
>
We have the virtual provides everywhere in Ruby packages and it works fine -
and there are much more dependencies there, so I think this shouldn't be a
problem.
> Thoughts?
> - --
> Matthias Runge
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPFql7AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWylgIAIvWjibDXtmGnbQZ1+5vLo/M
> genSkRCDr15geLcxrMKYZ7H7V07Q42vt8LGAj9AddFRLGROlKNfqrvsU9uGgrIkV
> uZb9sd97ZcyON5PQKwYnSzcLTXM+Un1/ZOejCHiOuqM8BrK5llZXU0sYhzckX4++
> EehFczZ8TTRW8ExRoZKGdvP2ontmRiJWjz8vy4igzMhQjzdgSNCsCX6h3iaeAJ15
> fcOnBzj76smf+9QJSQaveRaDCaMfme7YtKnxFB7ds9IyrGMmLWtXB6VFc6VT1mft
> MqSP3FVdEXC+8KZpfA8UPB8JJO8NTpVoSMNLIFdLrLserQdvkLxD7NxEQ/TUOT0=
> =h5IF
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> ___
> python-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Regards,
Bohuslav.
___
python-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
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.
- Original Message -
> - Original Message -
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On 18/01/12 10:38, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > > Hi Pythonists! in RHBZ #736776, Yury V. Zaytsev proposed renaming
> > > all Django packages (including Django itself) to python-django-*.
> > > This change is suggested because of current inconsistent state:
> > > Django and Django-south packages start with capital letters,
> > > other
> > > Django extension libraries start with lowercase letters -
> > > django-*.
> > > Also, since Django is a Python framework (not a standalone app),
> > > all of the modules should have 'python-' prepended. Personally, I
> > > agree with Yury and I think we should make this change. Here are
> > > the steps that I propose: - discuss it on this list - ask FPC
> > > what
> > > they think - create a special section in Python packaging
> > > guidelines for packaging Django extensions/libraries, if we agree
> > > that we should do this change - perhaps postponing this change to
> > > F18 might be a good idea
> > >
> > > Note, that this change should not affect applications written in
> > > Django, only Django itself and its extensions/libraries. I would
> > > also consider using some kind of virtual provides, so that if
> > > someone types "yum install django", it will work - maybe each
> > > Django extension/library could have a virtual provide like
> > > "Provides: django(foo) = %{version}".
> > >
> > > So, what do you think?
> > >
> > > Regards, Bohuslav.
> > > ___
> > > python-devel mailing list [email protected]
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
> > Hi,
> >
> > renaming requires a re-review of packages.
>
> Yep, I know, but I think we shouldn't let this hold us back. The
> packages have already passed once, so I think it wouldn't be much of
> a pain.
>
> >
> > I think, this step should become synchronized with other packages,
> > such
> > as squirrelmail -> php-squirrelmail (and other php packages, such
> > as
> > renaming cups-php to php-cups. Naming should be implemented
> > constistently throughout the distribution. Could we use this
> > renaming
> > to implement any other renaming of packages without requiring
> > re-reviews?
> >
>
> I think that we should solve Python and leave PHP to PHP guys. PHP
> has its own guidelines, and if they are not creating and approving
> packages that conform with the guidelines, it's their fault (but I
> agree that they should do something like that, too). I'm not sure if
> the renaming can be achieved in any other way than re-reviewing, but
> I think that the number of Django packages is not that high, so
> let's stick with re-reviewing.
>
> > Maybe the described solution via virtual provides could solve the
> > actual problem. Newer django-packages should be packaged as
> > python-django-foobar
> >
>
> I see your point, but what I meant was that the packages should be
> named properly (python-django-*) and have a virtual provide
> django-*. I think it's not so big transition that we wouldn't be
> able to get it to F18 (but I would recommend against getting it to
> F17, as time is short).
>
> > The latter would just need a provenpackager and some time to adjust
> > requires and provides of packages.
> >
> > Disadvantage would be ballooning of the requirement solver tree in
> > a
> > package manager.
> >
>
> We have the virtual provides everywhere in Ruby packages and it works
> fine - and there are much more dependencies there, so I think this
> shouldn't be a problem.
>
> > Thoughts?
> > - --
> > Matthias Runge
> >
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> >
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPFql7AAoJEOnz8qQwcaIWylgIAIvWjibDXtmGnbQZ1+5vLo/M
> > genSkRCDr15geLcxrMKYZ7H7V07Q42vt8LGAj9AddFRLGROlKNfqrvsU9uGgrIkV
> > uZb9sd97ZcyON5PQKwYnSzcLTXM+Un1/ZOejCHiOuqM8BrK5llZXU0sYhzckX4++
> > EehFczZ8TTRW8ExRoZKGdvP2ontmRiJWjz8vy4igzMhQjzdgSNCsCX6h3iaeAJ15
> > fcOnBzj76smf+9QJSQaveRaDCaMfme7YtKnxFB7ds9IyrGMmLWtXB6VFc6VT1mft
> > MqSP3FVdEXC+8KZpfA8UPB8JJO8NTpVoSMNLIFdLrLserQdvkLxD7NxEQ/TUOT0=
> > =h5IF
> > -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> > ___
> > python-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
>
> Regards,
> Bohuslav.
> ___
> python
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
-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 - -- Matthias Runge -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 [email protected] 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 > > -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 [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
Re: Django packages - proposed name changes
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: > > 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.). The only thing, that's bothering me is the usual python2/3 mess. Maybe it should be clear directly from the name? python2-django-* for python2 modules and python3-django-* for python3 modules, when they are finally ready? (And python-django-* only for packages that have both python2 and python3 in one module?) Greetings, Tom ___ python-devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
