Django packages - proposed name changes

[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_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).

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