Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 08:25:25 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: Olivier Duchateau <olivierd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reorganization of the py-sqlalchemy ports Message-ID: <c7bbc67f-ad20-947b-3900-55b5a713c2b0@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org> References: <03d3359e-0c33-76e2-5059-8d9caaab832e@FreeBSD.org> <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --hstbAsUbgs3uGqvtV7NW6E0uIS9Boqg98 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="hpiMnSPUllflFX6uNPLlR7B4CbkUUe1fX" From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: Olivier Duchateau <olivierd@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <c7bbc67f-ad20-947b-3900-55b5a713c2b0@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Reorganization of the py-sqlalchemy ports References: <03d3359e-0c33-76e2-5059-8d9caaab832e@FreeBSD.org> <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org> --hpiMnSPUllflFX6uNPLlR7B4CbkUUe1fX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 18/05/2016 23:04, Olivier Duchateau wrote: >> I'm proposing the following: >> >=20 >> > 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 on= e 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= =2E Cheers, Matthew --hpiMnSPUllflFX6uNPLlR7B4CbkUUe1fX-- --hstbAsUbgs3uGqvtV7NW6E0uIS9Boqg98 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJXPWpsXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2NTNBNjhCOTEzQTRFNkNGM0UxRTEzMjZC QjIzQUY1MThFMUE0MDEzAAoJELsjr1GOGkATqwgP/jqtMNO78MFyoqdvG2Ik3EAv OUn7Xr7JoxOcDFNrit5jyIvYSFk6NkJe6cIadhItie8JbumVg/jgSgS+DGGLQE8r Wau1rrRs4KbuYD+JlVqzvvJbFbgdSRMASxvGuti7PcWMrMnr+qOZiuaFyG/SHs5j zpwIr6bPQFqAOwsAtYm0yMjlL4zxQEAFZN5DCt1QYWwrno+oJ36ZAA0ZpdpWoFoo mEvXEIXdALWR4VXiO3iUGxSYmk72FGw4EfiCcRlLgu580qvgN4MeY9ulcgdLbW1/ SnARs1spJFsMVNObDvruCSvS2PJxrrvJMBTpaXRz20TMH441o3rw9wie+Tc48Hje Xy+NWJb6d0ughh4H4sSeeW7ljG9L9PFjumq81mmNF7twZNyTHwhpNncQRxQiPPpx XeWWtfim6Lo9/hC8WvaBg1k8T5Mt+hrl8IwVN4CwvqRJX9/sKJrKNQ5UmJJTtIwn mpWWaeXQfXGjA7E6ha7feV3CGvzP1eZG1fk3cl6PDBhhCKIy2Bo12dbCjTNmxFZK EMa7nutSrC0NfFXe+lAdMPEIZu1xxY+vUHqM/iAJ8JaeVUJz25Zs+h+/LHxReOC3 pCTRQySDagTceXVqyAUuGksWMDJUk3QWVNEC9bNf7YKDLfajGq0AefL3xaYiqYhi GXmjmzCOfg2jtf3bbArw =fiOX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hstbAsUbgs3uGqvtV7NW6E0uIS9Boqg98--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?c7bbc67f-ad20-947b-3900-55b5a713c2b0>