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_Exis...

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@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@matthias-runge.de mrunge@fedoraproject.org -----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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel

Regards, Bohuslav. _______________________________________________ python-devel mailing list python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel

----- 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_Exis...

...

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@matthias-runge.de mrunge@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-----

----- Original Message -----

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkabrda@redhat.com 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@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/python-devel

----- 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@matthias-runge.de mrunge@fedoraproject.org

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_Exis...

----- 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

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

-----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_Exis...

...

...

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@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net

() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

...

-----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_Exis...

...

...

...

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!

----- 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.

----- 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@matthias-runge.de mrunge@fedoraproject.org

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!

----- 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@matthias-runge.de mrunge@fedoraproject.org

Right, that was my original idea, I agree only on master :)