[Python-modules-team] python-django_1.8.18-1~bpo8+1_amd64.changes REJECTED

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hello Raphael,

On 05/24/2017 09:15 PM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> An alternative idea would be to have two separate (source) packages in
>> sid: django and django-lts. Then django-lts could be put into backports
>> and so maintained according to the backport policy.
> 
> I don't really like the idea of a separate source package, it means more
> security work, a lot of headaches for dependencies, upgrades, etc.

I cannot follow here. Current state is:

 - sid/testing has latest version (including security work)
 - jessie-backports has latest LTS (including security work)

With my model that would be:

 - sid/testing has both, latest version and latest LTS (including
   security)
 - jessie-backports strictly follows django-lts and so shouldn't be
   much of a headache.

So the only downside I see is that there might be differences between
django-lts in sid/testing and django-lts in backports. For some packages
it is possible to not have any differences, not sure how the situation
is in this case.

Do I miss something?

> In my opinion, the only good solution is the following:
> - maintain only LTS versions in unstable/testing
> - keep non-LTS versions in experimental
> 
> Most of the (bigger) reverse dependencies of Django are interested in LTS
> versions (or are at least expected to work with the latest LTS version).

So packages are free to depend on django (i.e. latest version) or
django-lts or django | django-lts. Sounds flexible and great. (Ok, on
the other hand more chances to make something wrong.)

Best regards
Uwe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/python-modules-team/attachments/20170524/d5d7694e/attachment-0001.sig>