On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 13:28 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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 yet.
So for F21, we'd ship with only Django 1.6 support and would pick
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 choices:
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
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 policy
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
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
Now, that's forbidden by policy at this point, but maybe we could
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 :)
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York