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

Letting the 'turbogears' package in

[please CC-me, I'm not subscribed]


TurboGears has recently turned 1.0. I packaged that version 6 days ago,
and marked it medium, because some not-so-trivial changes were done, so
I wanted to watch it in unstable a bit before asking for its acceptance
in Etch. Here's the changelog with some comments:

  * New upstream release. 1.0 is here!
  * debian/patches/01_disable_requirements.diff,
  - updated to match the new version
  * debian/patches/04_sqlalchemy_fix_identity_relations.diff:
  - removed; applied upstream
  * debian/NEWS.Debian, debian/README.Debian:
  - document changes and important information concerning upgrade
    from the preview releases to the 1.0 stable release
  * debian/control:
  - moved python-support to Build-Depends, following lintian's advice
  * urgency set to medium since this is basically the 1.0~b series
    with bug fixes

The not-so-trivial changes are the ones documented in NEWS.Debian and
README.Debian: a change happened in the names of classes that
TurboGears auto-generates when using its 'quickstart' and which are
used internally by the Identity framework. That happened in 1.0~b2
which I unfortunatelly did not have time for packaging.

This means that everyone who quickstarted projects before 1.0~b2 need
to do manual (although simple) modifications to their projects. Those
are documented in README.Debian. It is very important that Debian Etch
releases this version with the new layout or our users would be
creating code that is already to be changed for the whole Etch
lifetime, if they want to use the package instead of installing TG

Other than that, the 1.0 release is basically stabilization of the
0.9 series, which has been packaged for Debian all the way from 0.9a6.
I am available for any questions you might have.

See you,

  Gustavo Noronha Silva <kov@debian.org>
http://www.debian.org/ | http://kov.eti.br/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: