← Back to team overview

pytagsfs team mailing list archive

Re: Packagers: input needed


Hi Forest,

On Monday 27 Apr 2009 01:39:06 Forest Bond wrote:
> Hi,
> [Ritesh, I've CC'd you here, but you may want to join the mailing list.]
I'm subscribed but I think I'm not receiving the mailing list messages.

> I'll be making a new pytagsfs release to deal with bug #364586 [1].
> I have a change on the way that fixes compatibility with the latest
> pyinotify release.  However, I've decided that, in the long term, I'd like
> to drop pyinotify in favor of inotifyx [2].  pyinotify has a habit of
> introducing a lot of backwards-incompatible changes, and I don't like their
> API that much, either. I feel pretty strongly about this decision, but I'd
> be open to input on that.
> My real question, though, is about releases.  I can either make a single
> release that drops pyinotify (0.9.1), or I can first make a pyinotify
> compatibility release (0.9.1) followed by a separate release that moves to
> inotifyx (0.9.2).
Either way is okay with me.
The new python-inotify that breaks pytagsfs is currently in experimental only.
Pushing inotifyx might take around a month to push through Debian's NEW queue. 
So, since the plan is to depend on inotifyx, I'll start packaging it now, so 
that it can be included in Debian asap.

> Making two releases might be nice for packagers, since you wouldn't have to
> package inotifyx right away in order to fix the breakage.  But if it would
> be just as easy to package inotifyx along with the new pytagsfs release, I
> won't bother making two releases.

Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Follow ups