From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri May 20 05:00:51 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05696B43BD0 for ; Fri, 20 May 2016 05:00:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from FreeBSD@shaneware.biz) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60019105F; Fri, 20 May 2016 05:00:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from FreeBSD@shaneware.biz) Received: from ppp14-2-37-105.lns21.adl2.internode.on.net (HELO leader.local) ([14.2.37.105]) by ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 20 May 2016 14:30:41 +0930 Subject: Re: Reorganization of the py-sqlalchemy ports To: Matthew Seaman References: <03d3359e-0c33-76e2-5059-8d9caaab832e@FreeBSD.org> <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org From: Shane Ambler Message-ID: <573E99F7.8050308@ShaneWare.Biz> Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 14:30:39 +0930 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 05:00:51 -0000 On 19/05/2016 16:55, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 18/05/2016 23:04, Olivier Duchateau wrote: >>> I'm proposing the following: >>>> >>>> py-sqlalchemy06 0.6.9 nivit@FreeBSD.org (Deprecate 2016-08-20) >>>> py-sqlalchemy07 0.7.10 nivit@FreeBSD.org (Deprecate 2016-08-20) >>>> py-sqlalchemy08 0.8.7 nivit@FreeBSD.org >>>> py-sqlalchemy09 0.9.10 m.tsatsenko@gmail.com >>>> py-sqlalchemy10 1.0.13 m.tsatsenko@gmail.com > >> I wonder, why to create as many SQLAlchemy ports as releases (it's just an ORM after all). >> The easiest way, imho is focusing on 1.0.x releases, and having only one port databases/py-sqlalchemy. > > This is the conservative approach. It may well be the case that > everything that depends on sqlalchemy can perfectly well just use the > latest version, in which case the number of ports can be reduced. > > However we don't know how compatible the different versions are yet, and > it will take some time and experimentation to work it out. In the mean > time, having this many ports will provide some assurance of compatibility. Personally I am just starting to look at sqlalchemy so can't comment on the compatibility between versions. Having a look at bsdstats.org they show port install numbers of py27-sqlalchemy 9 py27-sqlalchemy06 147 py27-sqlalchemy08 1 It may be worth considering keeping 0.6 for compatibility and drop 0.7, 0.8, 0.9 As we currently have 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 I would skip adding 0.9 and just add 1.0 -- FreeBSD - the place to B...Software Developing Shane Ambler