pytagsfs team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Packagers: input needed
On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 02:20:49AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> On Monday 27 Apr 2009 01:39:06 Forest Bond wrote:
> > I'll be making a new pytagsfs release to deal with bug #364586 .
> > 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 . 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.
Okay, I'll move forward with a single release (0.9.1). If other packagers would
like to stick with pyinotify for some time, they can patch pytagsfs. The
pytagsfs dev branch will have both fixes in it, so generating a patch to revert
the migration to inotifyx will be easy to do.
Specifically, bzr revision 522 is compatible with pyinotify 0.8.6. Revision 523
(which I'm about to push out) will require inotifyx.
Description: Digital signature