Django packages - proposed name changes

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

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.

[Matthias Runge]

-----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 python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org 
>  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 <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
               <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> -----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-----

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- 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 python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > 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 <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
>                 <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> >  -----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
>  python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel 
Regards,
Bohuslav.

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

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_E...

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 python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > > 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 <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
>  >                <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> >  > -----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
>  > python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel
>  
>  Regards,
>  Bohuslav.
>  _______________________________________________
>  python-devel mailing list
>  python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel

[Matthias Runge]

-----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_E...
>  
>  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 <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
               <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> -----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-----

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- 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_E...
>  > 
>  > 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 <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
>                 <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
> >  -----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----- 
>

[Thomas Spura]

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda <bkabrda(a)redhat.com&gt; 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

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
>  On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda
> <bkabrda(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  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?)
>   
Well, if I understand it correctly, the Python packaging guidelines say, that the Python 2
modules should be named python-* and Python 3 modules python3-*, so I would go with that
(although I agree that it is a mess :) ).

Bohuslav.

>  
>  Greetings,
>      Tom
>  _______________________________________________
>  python-devel mailing list
>  python-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel

[Matthias Runge]

On 18/01/12 14:47, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:

> > 
>  
>  Well, if I understand it correctly, the Python packaging guidelines
>  say, that the Python 2 modules should be named python-* and Python
>  3 modules python3-*, so I would go with that (although I agree that
>  it is a mess :) ).
>   
Ok, I just opened a new review request for python-django-debug-toolbar
instead of django-debug-toolbar.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784239

Right?
-- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
               <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
>  On 18/01/12 14:47, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  
>  >> 
>  > 
>  > Well, if I understand it correctly, the Python packaging guidelines
>  > say, that the Python 2 modules should be named python-* and Python
>  > 3 modules python3-*, so I would go with that (although I agree that
>  > it is a mess :) ).
>  > 
>  
>  Ok, I just opened a new review request for
>  python-django-debug-toolbar
>  instead of django-debug-toolbar.
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=784239
>  
>  Right?
>  --
>  Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
>                 <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 
Hi,
I think that you should follow the two guidelines that I mentioned in one of my previous
mails: [1], [2].

Therefore, you should use something like:
Provides: django-debug-toolbar = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: django-debug-toolbar < 0.9.3-1

And you should also throw in some comment about the change (maybe just a link to this
thread, so that everyone will be able to find out why the changes took place). And again,
let's leave it for the next Rawhide :)

Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda


[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process#Re-review_required
[2]
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_E...

[Matthias Runge]

Am 24.01.2012 13:18, schrieb Bohuslav Kabrda:
>  Hi,
>  I think that you should follow the two guidelines that I mentioned in one of my previous
> mails: [1], [2].
>
>  Therefore, you should use something like:
>  Provides: django-debug-toolbar = %{version}-%{release}
>  Obsoletes: django-debug-toolbar<  0.9.3-1
>
>  And you should also throw in some comment about the change (maybe just a link to this
> thread, so that everyone will be able to find out why the changes took place). And again,
> let's leave it for the next Rawhide :)
>
>  Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda 
Should I have mentioned, this is a new package?

No need to provide something, which didn't exist earlier. But until the 
name change finally took place, it is related, somehow.

During the big change I just would need to change requirements from 
Django to python-django and I'm done. So I think it doesn't make sense 
to create a package django-... today and get it reviewed in 4 weeks again.

Matthias

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
>  Am 24.01.2012 13:18, schrieb Bohuslav Kabrda:
>  >
>  > Hi,
>  > I think that you should follow the two guidelines that I mentioned
>  > in one of my previous mails: [1], [2].
>  >
>  > Therefore, you should use something like:
>  > Provides: django-debug-toolbar = %{version}-%{release}
>  > Obsoletes: django-debug-toolbar<  0.9.3-1
>  >
>  > And you should also throw in some comment about the change (maybe
>  > just a link to this thread, so that everyone will be able to find
>  > out why the changes took place). And again, let's leave it for the
>  > next Rawhide :)
>  >
>  > Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda
>  Should I have mentioned, this is a new package?
>  
>  No need to provide something, which didn't exist earlier. But until
>  the
>  name change finally took place, it is related, somehow.
>  
>  During the big change I just would need to change requirements from
>  Django to python-django and I'm done. So I think it doesn't make
>  sense
>  to create a package django-... today and get it reviewed in 4 weeks
>  again.
>  
>  Matthias 
Hi,
sorry for the confusion, I thought that the package already existed and you were just
re-reviewing it. It's of course OK this way.

Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda

[Frank Murphy]

On 18/01/12 13:47, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:

>  Well, if I understand it correctly, the Python packaging guidelines say, that the Python
> 2 modules should be named python-* and Python 3 modules python3-*, 
Can the python sig, not ask that python2 is python2
and python3 be as it is.
Then when python4 comes along call it python4.

Then ask for changes to be approved, for say F18\19?
and rebuild\obsolete as necessary.

-- 
Regards,

Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded

Python 2/3 packaging

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking a lot about the whole concept of Python2/3 packaging and from my
point of view it seems somehow confusing (renaming of python 3 binaries, split srpms/one
srpm stuff and so on). I'm currently working with few people on a "stack"
(or software collection) concept, that we are testing with Ruby and some of its libraries,
as we are stepping to 1.9.3 from 1.8.7. Basically, the stack allows you to have one
runtime (say, python2) in normal directory structure and then have a separate directory
structure for another runtime (python3 in this case) under /opt. So you don't need to
rename all paths and executables to python3-* and /usr/lib/python{2,3} or something like
that, but instead you use
$ python-binary

for the core system executable and you run

$ scl enable python3 "python-binary"

(where python3 is the name of the stack).

A great advantage of this concept is, that you have only one specfile, which can be built
both for the core system and for the stack and you don't need to do any renaming or
stuff like that. So when you decide that python 3 should be in the core system, you just
rebuild the packages in a different buildroot (I think it can be achieved for both the
split python2/3 SRPMS and SRPMS which generate python2/3 RPMS from one source, but I'd
have to think about a way how to do it nice and systematically for both cases - but split
SRPMS would be better).
I'll try to explain how to get stack or core system RPM from one SRPM in different
buildroots:
- There is a library called scl-utils [1], that is aimed at providing the core
functionality for any stack. It has a runtime part, (the "scl enable ...") which
takes care of redefining systems paths, and a build part, which contains redefinition of
all macros that you normally use in the specfile (like %{_libdir} etc.).
- If the build part of scl-utils is present in the buildroot that you are building in, the
resulting RPM has the relocated paths and installs under /opt. If the build part of
scl-utils is not in the buildroot, the resulting RPM gets built normally for the core
system.
(It is a little bit more complicated, but I think that everyone gets the point.)

If anyone of you is interested how this works with Ruby, there is a testing prototype of a
Ruby scl. You can read all the instructions how to install and run the stack at [2] - but
actually, this documentation is about an older version, which was actually named stack, so
here are the up-to-date commands:

- add the repofile from
http://bkabrda.fedorapeople.org/scl_1.8.7_01-27/scl_ruby_1.8.7.repo
- install the whole stack by "yum install scl_ruby_1.8.7" after adding the repo
- other commands from [2] apply, only substitute stack for scl (for example 'scl
enable ruby_1.8.7 "irb"' will launch the ruby interactive console)

I think it would be great to consider this concept as an alternative (possibly sometime
even replacement) to the current python/python3 state. What do you think, Pythonists? (And
please don't kill me, I am just trying to suggest something, not break the current
concept or start a flame war :) )

Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=12980
[2] http://mmaslano.livejournal.com/6963.html

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

>  -----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_E...
>  > 
>  > 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).

As mentioned in the e-mail I'm responding to, there are clear guidelines how to rename
packages, but after giving it a thought, I really think we should cooperate with fpc on
this, since we have quite a large number of packages to rename. Also, for the sake of
users, I would recommend to add Provides: django-foo to all, even the new, packages. The
users will probably want to install everything as django-foo, not python-django-foo. (So
for example Django itself would be python-django and would provide "Django"
because of the renaming guidelines and "django" so that it is consistent for
users.) But this would definitelly need to be approved by fpc.

What do you think? If you agree, I will go on with creating the fpc ticket.

Thank you all for cooperation.
(and sorry to Matthias for sending this e-mail just to him at first. I really promise to
learn using the reply-to-all button.)
-- 
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737293

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

-----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_E...
> >> 
> >> 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:  salimma(a)fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus(a)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-----

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

>  -----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_E...
>  >>> 
>  >>> 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.

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

>  > -----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_E...
>  > >>> 
>  > >>> 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.

[Matthias Runge]

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

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- 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.

[Matthias Runge]

On 05/03/12 07:56, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  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. 
Ok, after thinking about this, I'd request only f18 and master. There is no
real change besides the name.

Matthias
-- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
               <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
>  On 05/03/12 07:56, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  > 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.
>  
>  Ok, after thinking about this, I'd request only f18 and master. There
>  is no
>  real change besides the name.
>  
>  Matthias
>  --
>  Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
>                 <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 
I'm not sure I understand you. If I am not mistaken, then F18 is master - did you mean
F17 and master?

And please, some of the other guys, would you please cooperate with us?

Thank you all!

-- 
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.

[Matthias Runge]

On 07/03/12 13:51, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  I'm not sure I understand you. If I am not mistaken, then F18 is
>  master - did you mean F17 and master? 
Wah, no, I mean just F18 (our current
master).

I thought we won't include the rename in F17, right?

Matthias
-- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
               <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;

[Bohuslav Kabrda]

----- Original Message -----
>  On 07/03/12 13:51, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
>  > I'm not sure I understand you. If I am not mistaken, then F18 is
>  > master - did you mean F17 and master?
>  Wah, no, I mean just F18 (our current master).
>  
>  I thought we won't include the rename in F17, right?
>  
>  Matthias
>  --
>  Matthias Runge <mrunge(a)matthias-runge.de&gt;
>                 <mrunge(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 
Right, that was my original idea, I agree only on master :)

-- 
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.