[Pkg-zope-developers] Re: Zope 2.7 and Plone 2 status

[Andreas Tille]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004, Damien Genet wrote:

> Le jeu 15/07/2004 =E0 23:36, Andreas Tille a =E9crit :
> > Could you please be a little bit more verbose *which* zope product
> > is so outdated.  "Every" means "*" or whatever.
>
> Here are some raw statistics I collected :
>
> package name=09=09=09deb ver.=09upstream ver.=09report
> ------------=09=09=09--------=09-------------=09------
> zope-btreefolder2=09=090.5.0=09=091.0.1
:-((
> zope-cmf=09=09=091.3.3=09=091.4.5=09=09http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bug=
report.cgi?bug=3D194865
> zope-cmfcalendar=09=091.3.3=09=091.4.5
> zope-cmfcore=09=09=091.3.3=09=091.4.5
> zope-cmfdefault=09=09=091.3.3=09=091.4.5
For the CMF issue there are certain technical reasons if I'm not completely=
 wrong
which seem to make it a sane decision not to upgrade to a new version befor=
e Sarge
releases because it would destabilize a certain amount of stuff.  Alternati=
vely
we would need a hand full of full time Debian-Zope packagers.  Anyone willi=
ng to
pay for those people?

> zope-docfindereverywhere=090.4.1=09=090.5.0
A new version was sponsored by me but it will take some time until it will
be propagated to the Debian mirrors because there was a name change to docf=
indertab
which requires updates of the override file and I guess ftpadmins have a lo=
t
to do in these days.  SO I doubt that this new version will reach Sarge.

> zope-epoz=09=09=090.7.4=09=090.8.0
Latest version even 0.8.4 currently, but there are flaws with this product
I try to sort out which prevent me from uploading a new version for the
time beeing.

> zope-externaleditor=09=090.7=09=090.8
I recently sponsored an upload of the maintainer.
> zope-extfile=09=09=091.2.0=09=091.4.2
Done.

> zope-kinterbasdbda=09=091.0=09=092.0
:-((
> zope-ldapuserfolder=09=092.2=09=092.3
:-(
This package is known to be a little bit tricky and needs certain testing
if I'm not wrong here.
> zope-localizer=09=09=091.0.1=09=091.1.0a3
:-(
> zope-parsedxml=09=09=091.3.1=09=091.4
:-(
> zope-replacesupport=09=091.0.1=09=091.0.2
:-(
> zope-testcase=09=09=090.8.6=09=090.9.0
Done.
> zope-textindexng2=09=092.0.7=09=092.0.8
Done.
> zope-translationservice=09=090.3=09=090.4=09=09http://bugs.debian.org/cgi=
-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D235057
:-(
> zope-ttwtype=09=09=090.9.1=09=091.0rc2
Where did you got that from.  The site
    http://www.zope.org/Members/comlounge/TTWType/
not state this.
> zope-verbosesecurity=09=090.5=09=090.6
:-(
> zope-zms=09=09=092.1.2.7=09=092.2-beta
I will definitely not package beta versions of software I'm using in produc=
tion.
I'm in very strong contact to upstream and they suggested me to package exa=
ctly
this version.

> zope-zwiki=09=09=090.18.0=09=090.32.0=09=09http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin=
/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D253577
:-((
Well this package is mainly unmaintained.  Some weeks ago I was thinking ab=
out
a NMU of this package but I was not really convinced we really need YAW (Ye=
t Another
Wiki).  Feel free to file a request for removal to ftpmaster if you are ver=
y
bored by this outdatedness.

> zope2.7=09=09=09=092.7.0=09=092.7.1
There were rumors about an 2.7.2 upload - I did not had time to check.

> Even if many packages are just a minor version behind, some others are
> really outdated, and this sums to about half the packages not being up
> to date.
Well, I will not spend my time in verifying your statistics here but I trie=
d to
give reasons were I know the reasons and marked the entries with ":-(" wher=
e
I think it is not gould but might be no real problem and with ":-((" where =
I
see a real problem.  It reduces to three ":-((" real problems which is not =
as
bad as you stated.

> > I admit that this would some kind of hard job if really every product
> > would be outdated, but I guess it is not so hard as you said.  Unfortun=
ately
> > Zope product developers do not always notify people about new versions.=

>
> This may sound a bit too hard, but isn't it the maintainer work to keep
> in touch with upstream ?
Sure.  The consequence would be that I would immediately orphan all my Zope=

packages because I have neither an interest in the latest and greatest vers=
ion
(hey - my application runs with exactly these versions I packaged) nor the =
time
to verify changes on these web pages very frequently.  This fits to the cur=
rent
discussion of having watch files for every Debian package.  My position her=
e
is that I always accept patches with working watch files for my packages, b=
ut
I will not fiddle around with sometimes very strange versioning schemes of
upstream authors.

If you think my point of view is wrong I will orphan these packages but I d=
oubt
that this would lead to more frequent updates and thus would not really cha=
nge
the situation you are critizising.  To make it clear: I just understand you=
r
point of view that the situation should be enhanced but I see no way how to=

do this.  BTW, I really appreciate your work in keeping an eye on this prob=
lem
which might be a partly solution for the problem mentioned above.

Kind regards

          Andreas - after three weeks holiday since your original posting.