> From: mrunge@matthias-runge.de
> Date: 02/21/2014 13:11
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:40:52AM -0500, John.Florian@dart.biz wrote:
> > I too would much prefer this approach. For somebody like
me who wants to
> > maintain company-private packages based on django, this affords
more
> > flexibility. I realize it may always mean more packaging
work to keep
> > several python-djangoXYs in the distro, but it makes for a less
rigid
> > coupling between the OS and what framework version you need to
use.
> The issue with this approach is, there is no upgrade, i.e. if your
> fantasticApp-1.0 uses python-django15 and fantasticApp-1.1 requires
> python-django16, you'd still have the older Django installed, which
> will produce a conflict. Thus the upgrade will fail.
Oh, yes I see that now. I was
wishing for a python2/python3 like environement where both could coexist,
but clearly would break all my imports. I keep seeing more and more
reason to adopt the virtualenv approach, but I'd rather stick with the
Fedora packaging guidelines to avoid bundling, even for private projects.
It just seems so much more sensible, yet it does lead the "jump
when we say jump" syndrome. Still, I'd rather deal with the
upgrade conflict you mention than to be pinned to an older Fedora release.
It's always a fragile balancing act choosing between what needs to
be new and what cannot yet be new.
--
John Florian