Re: Freeze Exception for Python Django 1.0
[ Note: I'm also co-maintainer and sponsor of initial packager of
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Steve Langasek wrote:
> - Django 0.96.2 is already too far out of date for most applications (i.e.,
> it's been "too old" for the past 6 months), and has been in
> security-updates-only mode for over a year; if it comes down to releasing
> with 0.96.2 or not including django in the release, it appears to be
> better to release without django.
Indeed, I wanted to provide some numbers based on popcon data but
unfortunately it doesn't differentiate by versions.
However as a developer of some websites based on Django I can tell
that I used the SVN snapshots that were in experimental and that
any sane developer that reuses a minimum of Django modules available on
the web would have done the same as most of them have requirements
on features added after 0.96.
As a proof, some django external extensions have been packaged (by me) but
are only available in experimental:
And more are coming in experimental (not by me this time) as you can see
in the NEW queue: http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html
(python-django-djblets / python-django-evolution)
We're not asking any exception for those extensions, it would be good
enough to have the 1.0 version of the framework itself in lenny.
> > 2. A freeze exception would be low-impact. Currently there is no
> > application that depends on Django in unstable or testing. There are two
> > applications that Suggest Django because Django can use it but they
> > don't use the framework itself and are therefore compatible with the new
> > version.
> More than this, the python-django package has no reverse-dependencies or
> reverse-build-deps in the archive. So yes, the impact is low.
Only if you exclude experimental from your definiton of "archive". But as
far as sid/lenny are considered, you're right.
Full ack on the rest of your post.
Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch :