Re: python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED
Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> writes:
> Actually, they would need to do it regardless because of stretch. That
> is a rather weak argument IMHO. If the depending package comes from
> stretch it actually has to work with 1.10 now already.
Yes, the work has already been done in unstable.
However if 1.10.x enters backports, then that would mean all these
updated packages would then have to get rebuilt for backports. This
additional work is not required if backports stays with Django 1.8.x
I suspect this would mean more packages entering backports.
Rebuilding packages is for backports is generally trivial, except
packages in unstable often have dependancies that must be backported
first. These packages then depend on other packages that must be
backported first (been there done that). Or work arounds implemented if
this is not feasible.
> If it's an outside package I'm not so sure if having a backport for a
> package that changes interface so intensly that it requires a painful
> lot of work between versions is a wise decision in the first place.
Django 1.8.x versions are bug fixes only. However changing the 1.8 to
1.9 or beyond will introduce backward incompatable changes.
Hence the desire to keep backports on Django 1.8.x, to avoid these API
changes.
Doing so also means increased stability of the software in backports
that depends on Django - which is important for some people.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: