[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

zope, zope-popyda, psycopg and python1.5-{,egenix-}mxdatetime



Good evening,

Does anyone have opinions on this?  Is there a need for a
python1.5-mxdatetime (based on the old mxdatetime) or a
python1.5-egenix-mxdatetime (based on the new egenix mxdatetime)?

--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Nov 19, 2001 at 07:33:59PM +0100, Joel Rosdahl wrote:
> jpenny@universal-fasteners.com writes:
> 
> > Package: python-mxdatetime
> > Version: N/A
> > Severity: important
> 
> (Did you mean to send this to submit@bugs.debian.org?)

Actually, I did send it.  But it bounced with a weird message about
headers.  Anyway, I prefer to talk to people before filing a
bug. 

> 
> > Please prepare a python1.5-mxdatetime that has the correct
> > dependencies for python1.5.  This would be very useful to someone
> > who needs extra time to migrate from zope2.3 to zope2.4, for
> > example.
> > 
> > The current package conflicts with python1.5.  This should be a
> > simple matter of changing one dependency, and perhaps a conflicts
> > with python-mxdatetime and replaces python-mxdatetime.
> 
> python-mx* has been replaced by python-egenix-mx*, and I have asked
> the FTP maintainers to remove python-mx* from testing and unstable.
> So the conflict between the new python packages and python-mxdatetime
> is expected.  :-)
> 
> I don't know much about Zope, but the indications I've received are
> that no Debian packages need python-egenix-mx* compiled for Python
> 1.5.

At least zope-popyda and psycopg depend on it (for python1.5).  
I suspect that pgsql and possibly pygresql (deprecated but still there), 
do as well.  (as long as the zope 2.3 exists in testing, and possibly longer.)
You might check with fog@debian.org and klindsay@debian.org about their 
intentions W.r.t python1.5. (You may certainly forward this to them.)
I would prefer to maintain the option for python-popy at least for now.

The zope maintainer believes that he can transition people from
zope2.3.x to zope2.4.x painlessly.  I have been through at least
three upgrades, and can testify that it usually is quite pain filled.
Objects are often pickled in ZODB in a way that is not completely
compatible with the upgraded version.  At very least, it requires 
massive testing.

I have no strong opinion on the -mxdatetime versus egenix-mxdatetime for
1.5.  To be conservative, 1.5 ought to be about making no big changes
at this time, so I guess I would mildly prefer -mxdatetime, on the
principle of the "devil you know".

> 
> (But you maybe mean that Debian should have a python1.5-mxdatetime so
> that people who have installed Zope manually don't need to also
> install mxdatetime manually?)

people who have installed manually zope and these packages
are not really important; the packages in question all are heavily 
automaked and have proven moderately difficult for limited skill 
people to install.  But, as zope source-installs in a quite FHS 
unfriendly way, it would be quite difficult for a .deb to figure 
out where to install them, anyway, so they must have managed
somehow.  No, what I am worried about is people who do an upgrade 
and suddenly have massive breakage.
I would like to preserve at the the option of backing down to zope2.3.
And I think that there remain a handful of other important programs that
still require 1.5.

> 
>         Regards,
>         Joel

Thanks for your time and attention.

Jim
> 
> 
> -- 
> Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org>   (PGP and GPG keys available)
> 


--- End Message ---

-- 
Joel Rosdahl <joel@debian.org>   (PGP and GPG keys available)

Reply to: